Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

change_user_permission_level

Demote a Greenhouse user to Basic, revoking Site Admin status and all job-level permissions. Admin-only write operation; promote via add_job_permission instead.

Instructions

Demote a user to Basic, revoking all their permissions. Write operation — admin only.

Removes the user's Site Admin status and every job-level permission (Greenhouse "revoke permissions"). Promoting a user is not possible via the API — grant job roles with add_job_permission instead. To find user_id: list_users → match by name or email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesGreenhouse user ID
permission_levelNoMust be 'basic' — the only change Greenhouse supports via the APIbasic

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / permission_level / default
      Added value: +"basic"
    • addedInput schema / properties / permission_level / description
      Added value: +"Must be 'basic' — the only change Greenhouse supports via the API"
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / description
      Added value: +"Greenhouse user ID"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "user_id",
-  "permission_level"
-]New value: +[
+  "user_id"
+]
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 declares this is a write operation, that it is admin-only, and that it destroys Site Admin status plus all job-level permissions. It stops short of stating reversibility or whether any residual access remains, which is a minor gap for a destructive permission change.

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?

Front-loaded with the effect and safety constraint, then alternatives, then parameter discovery. Well organized across a few short lines, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the mutation's destructive scope, authorization requirement, the impossibility of the inverse operation, and the alternative tool, while an output schema handles return values. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: how to locate user_id (list_users, match by name or email). The permission_level constraint is already fully documented in the schema, so this is additive rather than redundant.

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 (demote a user to Basic) and immediately names the exact effect: removal of Site Admin status and every job-level permission. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_job_permission or update_user, which the description explicitly contrasts.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (demoting a user, admin only), explicit when-not (promotion is not possible via the API), and names the alternative (grant job roles with add_job_permission). It even supplies the discovery path for the required user_id via list_users.

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