Teamtailor Ops Control Plane

by app.vercel.ats-ops-control-plane-gateway

update_candidate

Update a Teamtailor candidate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Set true to run this live change. Ignored when dry_run=true.
`dry_run`	No	Preview the action without sending it.
`body_json`	No	JSON request body for documented write operations.
`query_json`	No	Additional documented query parameters, including bracketed filter keys.
`path_params`	No	Values for path placeholders such as {id} in a write operation.
`headers_json`	No	Additional request headers for endpoints that require vendor-specific headers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedJun 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Set true to run this live change. Ignored when dry_run=true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedJun 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update a Teamtailor candidate' without mentioning that it is a live write operation requiring confirmation, that dry_run previews the change, or any potential side effects. The schema's confirm/dry_run fields are structured data, not credited to the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters and nested objects. It is not verbose, yet it lacks the detail necessary to be genuinely useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about the candidate object, required versus optional fields, how to construct the body, or what the response looks like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no candidate-specific meaning; body_json remains generic and there is no indication of what fields can be updated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('Teamtailor candidate'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_candidate, get_candidate, and list_candidates. The purpose is immediately obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_candidate or update_job, nor does it mention prerequisites like having an existing candidate ID. It neither states when to use it nor when to avoid it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Teamtailor Ops Control Plane tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes due to specific resource names and detailed descriptions. However, the large number of similar get/list pairs (e.g., get_activity, get_answer) could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading, slightly reducing clarity.

Naming Consistency5/5

The naming follows a strict and predictable verb_noun pattern (list_/get_/create_/update_) using snake_case throughout. The only outlier is 'api_request', but it is a generic tool and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 62 tools, the set is large but arguably justified by the breadth of the Teamtailor domain (candidates, jobs, applications, interviews, notes, etc.). Still, it exceeds the typical 3-15 range for high coherence, making navigation heavy for agents.

Completeness3/5

The tool set provides comprehensive read access (get/list) for most entities, but lacks delete operations entirely and has limited update coverage (only candidate, job, job_application). The 'api_request' tool can compensate, but the surface has notable gaps in mutation capabilities.

Resources

Need Help?