List current openings from a company's Greenhouse ATS board using its board slug. Results use the shared Job shape; use this when you know the Greenhouse board name, then pass a job ID to the Greenhouse job detail tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| content | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external reach are covered. The description adds that results use the shared Job shape, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or result size for a board listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up routing second. No filler, though the clause about the shared Job shape is slightly loose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed. However, with 0% schema coverage and an unexplained 'content' parameter, plus the slug/token naming mismatch, the definition leaves a gap an agent must guess at.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the required input as a 'board slug', but the parameter is actually named 'token', which is a naming mismatch, and the 'content' boolean is not addressed at all.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List current openings from a company's Greenhouse ATS board') and explicitly names the sibling detail tool, so an agent can distinguish it from jobs_greenhouse_job and other ATS board tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'use this when you know the Greenhouse board name, then pass a job ID to the Greenhouse job detail tool' gives a clear condition for use and routes to the follow-up tool. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, but the routing is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
