get_application
Get a single application by ID. Returns full application details including status, candidate, job, stage, and answers.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The application ID |
Greenhouse Ops Control Plane
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description mentions return values but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error handling. Minimal behavioral context beyond read operation.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, description adequately states purpose and return content. Could include error handling or authentication notes.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states action (Get), resource (application), and method (by ID). Distinguishes from list_applications and other application-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly clear for retrieving a single application, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Adequate but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.