Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

upsert_application_note

Create an application note if an identical note is not already present. Because Harvest notes are create-only, exact matches become no-ops instead of replacements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Note body to attach to the application.
`type`	No	Note type. Defaults to NOTE.	NOTE
`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.
`subject`	No
`visibility`	No	Visibility for the created note.	privately_visible
`application_id`	Yes	The application ID to annotate
`confirm_note_write`	Yes	Must be true to execute an application note write.
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID to send with this write.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the create-only and idempotent behavior, but lacks information on authorization requirements, rate limits, return values, or error handling, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 with no extraneous information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides necessary behavioral context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by indicating what the tool returns (e.g., the created note ID) or what constitutes an 'identical note.' As is, it covers the basic behavior but leaves some gaps.

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 89%, so most parameters are already documented. The description does not add significant new meaning to the parameters, beyond implying that 'identical' refers to the note body (or maybe other fields). Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Create an application note if an identical note is not already present.' It specifies the verb (create) and resource (application note), and distinguishes from sibling tools like upsert_job_note by explicitly mentioning 'application note'.

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 explains the idempotent behavior ('exact matches become no-ops') and the create-only nature of Harvest notes, giving context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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?