Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_openings

List openings (requisitions) in Greenhouse. Shows headcount, target start dates, close reasons, and which application filled each opening.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated opening IDs
`open`	No	Filter by open/closed status
`cursor`	No	Pagination cursor from a previous response. When provided, must be the only filter parameter.
`job_ids`	No	Comma-separated job IDs
`per_page`	No	Results per page (1-500, default 100)
`closed_at`	No	Filter by closed date. Format: operator\|ISO8601
`opened_at`	No	Filter by opened date. 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
`opening_id`	No	Filter by opening ID string
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`application_ids`	No	Comma-separated application IDs
`close_reason_ids`	No	Comma-separated close reason IDs
`custom_field_option_id`	No	Filter by custom field option ID

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what fields are returned but does not disclose mutability (read-only implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a read operation, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing the main returned fields. However, it lacks details on pagination, error conditions, and how the filters interact (e.g., cursor exclusivity). The crowd of sibling list tools also demands clearer differentiation, which is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool's description does not add meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('openings (requisitions)'), and specific fields returned ('headcount, target start dates, close reasons, and which application filled each opening'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_jobs by specifying the 'openings' context, but does not explicitly differentiate from any tool that might also list openings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like get_job or list_jobs. Given the large number of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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?