Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_email_templates

List email templates in Greenhouse. Returns template details including name, subject, body, and email type when expanded access is available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated email template IDs to filter by
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. When provided, must be the only filter parameter.
`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
`email_type`	No	Filter by email template type (e.g. candidate_rejection, candidate_email, take_home_test_email, scorecard_reminder, etc.)
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID of the human approving this expanded data request.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions that template details are returned 'when expanded access is available', hinting at an authorization condition, but does not explain what expanded access means, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The behavior is partially transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with only two sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the core action and then adds return details, making it easy to parse. It could be slightly improved with structured formatting but is efficient.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits important context about pagination (cursor behavior), filtering constraints (cursor exclusivity), and the meaning of 'expanded access'. For a tool with complex filtering, it lacks sufficient detail.

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 well-described parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as usage hints or constraints on the filters.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'email templates in Greenhouse', fully distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_applications or list_candidates. It also mentions the return fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases, making it difficult for an agent to decide between this and sibling tools.

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?