Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_applications

List applications in Greenhouse. Returns operational application fields for pipeline work: id, candidate_id, job_id, stage_id, stage_name, status, current_stage_at, and last_activity_at. Status can be active, rejected, hired, or converted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated application IDs to filter by
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. When provided, must be the only filter parameter.
`status`	No	Filter by application status
`job_ids`	No	Comma-separated job IDs to filter by
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-500, default 100)
`prospect`	No	Filter by prospect status (true for prospects, false for applicants)
`stage_ids`	No	Comma-separated interview stage IDs to filter by
`created_at`	No	Filter by creation date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`source_ids`	No	Comma-separated source IDs to filter by
`stage_name`	No	Filter applications by current stage name (exact match)
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`job_post_ids`	No	Comma-separated job post IDs to filter by
`referrer_ids`	No	Comma-separated referrer IDs to filter by
`candidate_ids`	No	Comma-separated candidate IDs to filter by
`last_activity_at`	No	Filter by last activity date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`prospective_job_ids`	No	Comma-separated prospective job IDs to filter by
`custom_field_option_id`	No	Filter by custom field option ID

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully responsible for behavioral disclosure. Mentions returned fields and statuses but omits read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a list operation, stating it is safe to call repeatedly would help.

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 concise sentences that immediately state the action and key output details. No unnecessary words; the description is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity of 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain pagination, cursor usage constraints, default sorting, or how to combine filters. A more thorough description is needed for effective agent invocation.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 17 parameters. The description adds marginal value by explaining the tool's purpose (pipeline work) and listing returned fields, but does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'applications', specifies the returned fields (operational application fields) and possible statuses, distinguishing it from sibling list tools that might return different data.

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?

Implies usage for pipeline work via returned fields, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_candidates or list_jobs. No comparison or context of trade-offs.

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?