Greenhouse Ops Control Plane

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

upsert_offer_review_note

Create an offer-review note on the application if an identical review note is not already present. Exact matches become no-ops instead of replacements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Draft review note body for human approval.
`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	Optional explicit subject override.
`offer_id`	No	Optional offer ID to include in the canonical subject.
`visibility`	No	Visibility for the offer review note.	privately_visible
`application_id`	Yes	The application ID to annotate for offer review.
`confirm_note_write`	Yes	Must be true to execute an offer review note write.
`on_behalf_of_user_id`	Yes	Greenhouse user ID to send with this write.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the idempotent behavior (exact matches are no-ops) and implies creation otherwise. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens on non-exact matches.

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 are concise and front-loaded with the core action and condition. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough for the core behavior but lacks context on what an offer-review note is, typical use cases, or expected output (e.g., response format). It covers the essential but leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully utilize.

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 already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the idempotent condition. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description supplements but doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 (create/upsert), the resource (offer-review note on the application), and the idempotent condition (exact matches become no-ops). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'upsert_application_note' or 'upsert_job_note' by specifying it's for offer-review notes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool (to create an offer-review note if not present) and the exact-match condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like upsert_application_note, leaving room for confusion among the many list and upsert siblings.

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?