Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

list_tracking_links

List tracking links in Greenhouse. Used for source attribution — connects sources, referrers, job boards, and job posts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Comma-separated tracking link IDs
`token`	No	Filter by tracking token
`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
`source_ids`	No	Comma-separated source IDs
`updated_at`	No	Filter by update date. Format: operator\|ISO8601 (e.g. gte\|2024-01-01T00:00:00Z). Operators: gte, lte, gt, lt
`job_post_ids`	No	Comma-separated job post IDs
`referrer_ids`	No	Comma-separated referrer IDs
`job_board_ids`	No	Comma-separated job board IDs

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided; the description implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but lacks explicit statements about side effects, rate limits, or safety. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description offers the high-level purpose but could benefit from typical usage scenarios or filter combinations. The schema documentation is rich, so completeness is high but not maximal.

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 the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'tracking links', and the context 'in Greenhouse' with a specific use case 'source attribution'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by naming a unique resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for source attribution but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings. However, the context makes it clear where this tool fits.

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?