Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Grant', implying a write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and potential side effects.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (user_id, job_id, user_role_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their formats, or valid values (e.g., what user_role_id corresponds to), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Grant') and resource ('a user a specific role on a job'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'add_future_job_permission' or 'change_user_permission_level', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_future_job_permission' or 'change_user_permission_level'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the user or job must exist, leaving the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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