Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_offers

List offers in Greenhouse. By default returns operational offer fields. detail_profile=compensation includes compensation fields and custom offer fields when expanded access is available.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated offer IDs to filter by
`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.
`status`	No	Filter by offer status
`job_ids`	No	Comma-separated job IDs to filter by
`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 operational; compensation includes salary/equity/custom-field detail when expanded access is available.
`application_ids`	No	Comma-separated application IDs to filter by
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	No	Required when detail_profile=compensation.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description reveals that compensation fields depend on 'expanded access' and that detail_profile=compensation includes custom fields. However, it does not explain pagination constraints, required parameters under certain conditions, or date format requirements. With no annotations, this is moderate transparency.

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, no wasted words. The most important information (what it does and default behavior) is presented first.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about conditional behavior, pagination, and output structure. It only covers a small part of the tool's capabilities.

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 covers all 11 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds context for the detail_profile parameter (expanded access condition) but does not add significant new meaning to other parameters.

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 offers in Greenhouse, specifies the default return fields, and mentions the detail_profile option. It uniquely identifies the resource among siblings, as there is no other list_offers tool.

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 alternatives like other offer-related tools (e.g., create_offer_draft, patch_offer_core). It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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?