Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

remove_job_coordinator_owner

Remove a single coordinator owner from a job hiring team. Active or responsible owners require explicit override flags.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`job_id`	Yes	The Greenhouse job ID
`reason`	Yes	Human-readable audit reason for this change. Must be at least 12 characters.
`dry_run`	No	When true, validate and preview the change without sending a write request.
`user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID to remove from coordinator owners
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID to send with this write.
`allow_responsible_removal`	No	Must be true to remove a coordinator owner marked responsible.
`confirm_hiring_team_change`	Yes	Must be true to execute a hiring-team write.
`allow_active_member_removal`	No	Must be true to remove an active coordinator owner.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the override flag requirement for active/responsible owners, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, side effects of removal, or what happens when the user is not found. The dry_run parameter and confirm_hiring_team_change are unmentioned, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and immediately follows with the key condition, earning its place without filler.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, mutation, no output schema), the description is too brief. It lacks context on what a coordinator owner is, the overall removal process, the role of dry_run and confirm_hiring_team_change, and expected outcomes. It covers the core action but leaves the agent to infer or rely on schema alone for many details.

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% with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the condition for allow_active_member_removal and allow_responsible_removal, which is not fully apparent from the schema alone.

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 'Remove' and the resource 'coordinator owner from a job hiring team', specifying the single-owner scope and the override condition for active/responsible owners. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'remove_job_recruiter_owner'.

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 explicitly says 'Active or responsible owners require explicit override flags', guiding when to use allow_active_member_removal and allow_responsible_removal. It implies no flags needed otherwise, but doesn't compare directly to alternative tools like add_job_coordinator_owner or other removal variants.

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?