Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_interviews

List interviews in Greenhouse. Returns actual interview events with status, times, organizer, application, and job. Status values: to_be_scheduled, scheduled, awaiting_feedback, complete, skipped, collect_feedback, to_be_sent, sent, received.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated interview IDs
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. When provided, must be the only filter parameter.
`status`	No	Filter by status
`ends_at`	No	Filter by end time. Format: operator\|ISO8601
`job_ids`	No	Comma-separated job IDs
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-500, default 100)
`starts_at`	No	Filter by start time. Format: operator\|ISO8601
`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
`organizer_ids`	No	Comma-separated organizer user IDs
`application_ids`	No	Comma-separated application IDs
`job_interview_ids`	No	Comma-separated job interview IDs

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose key behavioral traits. It does not confirm that the tool is read-only, explain pagination via the cursor parameter, or address rate limits or side effects. The only behavioral info is the list of status values.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and return fields. It avoids wordiness but could be slightly more structured to separate the return fields and status list more clearly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics (return fields, status values) but omits important context such as pagination behavior, date filtering format, and differentiation from list_scheduled_interviews. This leaves moderate gaps in completeness.

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 listing the return fields and enumerating all status values, which helps agents understand the meaning of the status parameter and the expected output beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists interviews in Greenhouse and specifies the return fields (status, times, organizer, application, job). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_scheduled_interviews, which could cause confusion about the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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?