Greenhouse MCP

bulk_tag

Tag multiple candidates at once by passing their candidate IDs and a tag name; existing tags are skipped and new tags are created automatically.

Instructions

Tag multiple candidates in one call. Write operation — rate-limited.

Users say "tag all the candidates from the hiring event." Pass candidate_ids from search or pipeline tools and a tag_name (created automatically if new). Candidates who already have the tag are skipped. Processes sequentially with rate-limit delays.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "candidate_ids": "<candidate_ids>",
      "tag_name": "<tag_name>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag_name`	Yes	Tag name to apply — created on-the-fly if it doesn't exist
`candidate_ids`	Yes	Candidate IDs to tag — get from list_candidates or search

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / candidate_ids / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate IDs to tag — get from list_candidates or search"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / tag_name / description
```
Added value: +"Tag name to apply — created on-the-fly if it doesn't exist"
```
Addedv0.3.3Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags that this is a write operation, that it is rate-limited, that existing tags cause candidates to be skipped (idempotent-ish behavior), and that processing is sequential with delays. It omits permission/auth requirements and any failure semantics for invalid IDs.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loads the core action and the write/rate-limit caveat, then adds only the details an agent needs. Short, well-ordered sentences with 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both params plus the mutation/rate-limit behavior are covered. Minor gaps remain around permissions and error handling for invalid candidate IDs, but the definition is sufficient to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including on-the-fly tag creation and where to source IDs). The description largely restates this, adding only 'pipeline tools' as an extra ID source, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (tag) plus resource (candidates) and scope (multiple in one call), which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-target sibling add_tag_to_candidate. It does not explicitly name that alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives a source hint ('pass candidate_ids from search or pipeline tools') and a representative user utterance, which helps routing. However, it never explicitly states when to use this bulk tool versus add_tag_to_candidate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server