Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_note_to_candidate

Logs a note to a candidate's activity feed in Greenhouse, authored by the configured user. Use the candidate ID from a name search to add private, public, or admin-only notes.

Instructions

Add a text note to a candidate's Notes tab / activity feed. Write operation.

Users say "add a note to Sarah's profile" or "log that I spoke with John." The note is authored by the configured Greenhouse user. To get candidate_id: search_candidates_by_name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesNote text content (plain text)
visibilityNo'private' (default), 'public' (all users with access), or 'admin_only'private
candidate_idYesGreenhouse candidate ID
application_idNoOptionally anchor the note to one of the candidate's applications

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / application_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Optionally anchor the note to one of the candidate's applications",
+  "title": "Application Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Added value: +"Note text content (plain text)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / candidate_id / description
      Added value: +"Greenhouse candidate ID"
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility / description
      Added value: +"'private' (default), 'public' (all users with access), or 'admin_only'"
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and that the note is authored by the configured Greenhouse user, but says nothing about required permissions, editability/deletion, or rate limits.

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, and each subsequent line (write-op flag, authorship, ID acquisition) earns its place. Slightly fragmented across lines, but no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, authorship, and ID lookup for a write tool. The main gap is the absence of permission/authorization context, which matters for a mutation with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by telling the agent how to source candidate_id via search_candidates_by_name, which is beyond what the schema states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a text note to a candidate's Notes tab / activity feed'), which is clear. It distinguishes itself from the text-note family by specifying 'text note' and naming the destination surface, though it never explicitly rules out the close sibling add_email_note_to_candidate.

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?

Provides concrete natural-language triggers ('add a note to Sarah's profile', 'log that I spoke with John') and points to search_candidates_by_name for obtaining candidate_id, which gives clear context. It lacks any explicit when-not or alternative-tool exclusion guidance.

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