Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_attachment_to_application

Attach a file to a specific Greenhouse application using its application ID, filename, and type. Provide a public URL or Base64 content to upload the attachment.

Instructions

Attach a file to a specific application. Write operation.

To find the application_id: search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → match the application to the job. The file type is inferred from the filename extension. add_attachment does the same when you only know the candidate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPublic URL to fetch the file from — provide this OR content, not both
typeYesType: 'resume', 'cover_letter', 'take_home_test', 'offer_letter', 'other', ... ('admin_only' = 'other' with admin-only visibility)
contentNoBase64-encoded file content — provide this OR url, not both
filenameYesFile name with extension, e.g. 'resume.pdf'
visibilityNoWho can see it: 'public', 'private', or 'admin_only'
application_idYesGreenhouse application ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / application_id / description
      Added value: +"Greenhouse application ID"
    • addedInput schema / properties / content / description
      Added value: +"Base64-encoded file content — provide this OR url, not both"
    • removedInput schema / properties / content_type
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "application/pdf",
-  "title": "Content Type",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / filename / description
      Added value: +"File name with extension, e.g. 'resume.pdf'"
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Added value: +"Type: 'resume', 'cover_letter', 'take_home_test', 'offer_letter', 'other', ... ('admin_only' = 'other' with admin-only visibility)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"Public URL to fetch the file from — provide this OR content, not both"
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Who can see it: 'public', 'private', or 'admin_only'",
+  "title": "Visibility"
+}
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 labels the operation a 'Write operation' and notes the type is inferred from the filename extension, which is useful. However it says nothing about permission/auth requirements, overwrite or duplicate-filename behavior, or whether the write is reversible. Adequate but thin for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the id-discovery workflow and the sibling note. Every sentence earns its place, though the arrow-chain workflow is slightly verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully documents parameters. The description supplies the two things structured fields can't: the id-discovery workflow and sibling disambiguation. Only the behavioral/permission context is missing for a write tool.

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 all six parameters are already documented (including the url/content either-or and visibility values). The description adds only the filename-extension-to-type inference note, which is marginally useful but slightly at odds with 'type' being a required enum-like parameter. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach a file to a specific application') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling add_attachment ('does the same when you only know the candidate'). An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides a concrete workflow for obtaining the required application_id (search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → match to job) and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it (candidate-only knowledge). Both when-to-use and the alternative are explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools