Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_notes

List notes in Greenhouse. By default returns operational note metadata. detail_profile=body includes subject and body when expanded access is available. Types: NOTE, ACTIVITY, INTERVIEW, EMAIL, FOLLOW_UP, TAKE_HOME_TEST, LINKEDIN_NOTE, LINKEDIN_INMAIL, AVAILABILITY_REQUEST, TOUCHPOINT, FORM, FEEDBACK.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated note IDs
`type`	No	Filter by note type (NOTE, ACTIVITY, INTERVIEW, EMAIL, etc.)
`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.
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-500, default 100)
`user_ids`	No	Comma-separated user IDs (note authors)
`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
`visibility`	No	Filter by visibility
`candidate_ids`	No	Comma-separated candidate IDs
`detail_profile`	No	Projection profile. Default is minimal; body includes subject and body text when expanded access is available.
`application_ids`	No	Comma-separated application IDs
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	No	Required when detail_profile=body.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: default metadata only, detail_profile=body for subject and body (subject to access), note type filtering, cursor pagination constraints, reason requirement for broadened response, and on_behalf_of_user_id requirement for body. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature 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?

Two sentences with a bullet list of types. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Highly efficient.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, projection options, note types, and key parameter constraints. Missing details on pagination mechanics and response shape, but adequate for the complexity.

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 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of detail_profile, listing note types, and clarifying constraints on cursor, reason, and on_behalf_of_user_id. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 lists notes in Greenhouse and specifies what is returned by default and with detail_profile=body. It also lists note types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_job_notes, leaving some ambiguity about 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_job_notes or list_applications. The description only states what the tool does, not when it is appropriate to use.

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?