Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_candidates

List candidates in Greenhouse. By default returns a projected minimal view: per-candidate metadata only (id, last_activity_at, stage_snapshot, tag_ids, private). detail_profile=contact broadens the projection to include candidate name, primary contact fields, LinkedIn URL, location, and attachment metadata; signed attachment URLs remain opt-in via include_attachment_urls and require a reason.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated candidate IDs to filter by
`tag`	No	Filter by candidate tag name
`email`	No	Filter by email address
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. When provided, must be the only filter parameter.
`reason`	No	Required when detail_profile requests a broadened response shape.
`private`	No	Filter by private/confidential status
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-500, default 100)
`created_at`	No	Filter by creation date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`detail_profile`	No	Projection profile. Default is minimal; contact broadens the candidate contact surface and requires a reason.
`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
`custom_field_option_id`	No	Filter by custom field option ID
`include_attachment_urls`	No	Only valid with detail_profile=contact. When true, includes signed attachment URLs.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits such as default minimal projection, the effect of detail_profile=contact, and the need for a reason and opt-in for signed URLs. It could further explain response structure or rate limits.

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?

The description is comprised of three concise sentences, each adding essential information. It starts with the main purpose, then explains defaults, then the expanded view and opt-in requirements. No redundant 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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and constraints. It could mention pagination or response format, but the schema already handles parameter descriptions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of detail_profile values and the relationship between detail_profile and include_attachment_urls, going 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists candidates in Greenhouse, with specific details about projection profiles and opt-in features. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by highlighting its unique behavior and parameter interactions.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use detail_profile=contact and include_attachment_urls, including the requirement for a reason. However, it does not explicitly compare with other list tools like list_applications or state when not to use this tool.

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?