Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

create_offer_draft

Create a draft offer for an application in Greenhouse. Refuses duplicate created offers unless explicitly allowed and never submits for approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	Yes	Human-readable audit reason for this change. Must be at least 12 characters.
`dry_run`	No	When true, validate and preview the change without sending a write request.
`starts_on`	No	Offer start date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`opening_id`	No
`custom_fields`	No
`application_id`	Yes	The application ID the offer belongs to.
`confirm_offer_draft`	Yes	Must be true to create a draft offer.
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID to send with this write.
`allow_duplicate_offer_draft`	No	Must be true to create another created-status draft when one already exists for the application.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It covers the duplicate refusal and no-submission behaviors, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite complexity (9 params, no output schema), the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. It lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and outcomes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds context for 'allow_duplicate_offer_draft' by mentioning duplicate refusal, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Create a draft offer for an application') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it never submits for approval and refuses duplicates unless allowed. This provides clear purpose and differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains when to use this tool versus alternatives by stating it never submits for approval and handles duplicate behavior, but does not explicitly reference sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions. Some guidance is present.

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

All Greenhouse 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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

With 87 tools, there is potential for confusion among similar list tools (e.g., list_candidates vs list_applied_candidate_tags), but each tool targets a distinct entity or action, and descriptions provide enough clarity to differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores (e.g., list_jobs, get_application, patch_candidate_profile). No mixing of styles or irregular conventions.

Tool Count1/5

At 87 tools, the count is extremely high for a single server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. While the domain is broad, the number of tools is likely to overwhelm agents and dilute focus.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations (list, get, patch, add, remove, upsert) across many entities, but lacks basic CRUD for core objects like jobs and candidates (no create_job or create_candidate), leaving notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?