Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create a new prospect' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it triggers notifications, if duplicates are allowed, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Create a new prospect') and mentions key parameters. There's zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool description, though the 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 complexity (9 parameters, creation/mutation operation) with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps), the description doesn't address critical context like required permissions, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the many sibling creation tools. For a prospect creation tool in what appears to be an ATS/CRM system, this leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 compensate. It mentions 'name and optional pool, stage, and owner assignment' which covers only 4 of the 9 parameters (first_name/last_name as 'name', plus three optional IDs). It omits company, title, phone_numbers, and email_addresses entirely, leaving most parameters undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new prospect', specifying it's for adding prospects to a system. It mentions key fields like name and optional assignments, which helps distinguish it from generic creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_candidate' or 'post_candidate', which might have overlapping purposes in a CRM/ATS context.

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. With many sibling tools like 'create_candidate', 'post_candidate', and 'convert_prospect', there's no indication of prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where 'add_prospect' is preferred. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's specific role in the workflow.

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