Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_prospect_pools

List prospect pools in Greenhouse. Shows pool names, descriptions, associated departments/offices/jobs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated prospect pool IDs
`active`	No	Filter by active 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)
`created_at`	No	Filter by creation date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`office_ids`	No	Comma-separated office IDs
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`department_ids`	No	Comma-separated department IDs

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output fields but lacks details on pagination, default filters, error behavior, or that this is a read-only operation.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain pagination, filtering behavior, return format, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action 'List prospect pools in Greenhouse' and specifies what it shows (names, descriptions, associated departments/offices/jobs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prospect_pool_stages and list_departments.

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. With many sibling list tools, explicit context for when to choose this one over others would help.

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?