Skip to main content
Glama

Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

get_offer_letter_context

Build offer-letter drafting context for a single application or offer. Returns candidate contact fields, attachment metadata, application answers, offer custom fields, note bodies, and scorecard text when expanded access is available. Signed attachment URLs are opt-in via include_attachment_urls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesHuman-readable audit reason for this change. Must be at least 12 characters.
offer_idNoOffer ID to build context for. Provide either offer_id or application_id.
notes_limitNoMaximum number of notes to include when include_notes=true.
include_notesNoWhen true, include note subjects and bodies for the application.
application_idNoApplication ID to build context for. Provide either application_id or offer_id.
include_scorecardsNoWhen true, include raw scorecard questions, answers, and attribute notes.
on_behalf_of_user_idYesGreenhouse user ID of the human approving this expanded data request.
include_attachment_urlsNoWhen true, include signed attachment URLs from the candidate profile.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It states that signed attachment URLs are opt-in via a parameter and that expanded access affects available data. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly declare idempotency or side effects. Still, it provides useful transparency for an agent.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place: first states purpose and returns, second highlights an opt-in feature. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key return fields and access conditions. It explains what data is returned and the opt-in for attachment URLs. It lacks details on error handling or permission prerequisites but is reasonably complete for a data retrieval tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it mentions 'include_attachment_urls' as opt-in, which is already in the schema. No new insight into parameter usage or constraints is provided.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: building offer-letter drafting context for a single application or offer. It lists the returned data types, distinguishing it from simpler get_application or get_candidate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_application, so not a perfect 5.

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?

The description implies usage for offer-letter drafting but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools. It mentions 'when expanded access is available' but doesn't elaborate on conditions. Basic guidance is present but incomplete.

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 toolsInspect
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