Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_application

Apply an existing candidate to a job by passing candidate and job IDs. Create the application, then upload attachments or assign recruiters.

Instructions

Apply an existing candidate to a job. Write operation.

Users say "add Sarah to the Backend Engineer role." Resolve both IDs first: candidate — search_candidates_by_name; job — list_jobs → match by name. The candidate must already exist (create_candidate can also create the candidate and application in one step). Attachments are uploaded to the new application afterwards; their results are under attachment_results. For sourced prospects, use add_prospect. For partner submissions, use post_candidate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesID of the job to apply to — get from list_jobs
source_idNoCandidate source ID — get from list_sources
attachmentsNoResume/files to add after creating: [{filename, type, content (base64) or url}]
referrer_idNoReferrer record ID to credit for this application
candidate_idYesID of an existing candidate — use create_candidate first if needed
recruiter_idNoUser ID of the recruiter — get from list_users
coordinator_idNoUser ID of the coordinator — get from list_users
initial_stage_idNoStarting interview stage ID (list_job_stages_for_job) — defaults to the first stage

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments / description
      Added value: +"Resume/files to add after creating: [{filename, type, content (base64) or url}]"
    • addedInput schema / properties / candidate_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of an existing candidate — use create_candidate first if needed"
    • addedInput schema / properties / coordinator_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "User ID of the coordinator — get from list_users",
+  "title": "Coordinator Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / initial_stage_id / description
      Added value: +"Starting interview stage ID (list_job_stages_for_job) — defaults to the first stage"
    • addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
      Added value: +"ID of the job to apply to — get from list_jobs"
    • addedInput schema / properties / recruiter_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "User ID of the recruiter — get from list_users",
+  "title": "Recruiter Id"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / referrer
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "Referrer"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / referrer_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Referrer record ID to credit for this application",
+  "title": "Referrer Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / source_id / description
      Added value: +"Candidate source ID — get from list_sources"
  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, states attachments are uploaded after creation and returned under attachment_results, and notes initial stage defaults to the first stage. It stops short of auth/permission requirements or idempotency behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 write nature in the first two lines, then layers resolution steps, the existence precondition, attachment behavior, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; the line breaks aid scanning without padding.

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?

For an 8-parameter write tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, preconditions, side effects (attachments), and routing to alternatives. It could say more about permission requirements or what the returned application record contains, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 real meaning: it explains how to resolve candidate_id and job_id (which lookup tools to use) and clarifies that attachments are applied post-creation with results under attachment_results. That is workflow context the schema does not supply.

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+resource ("Apply an existing candidate to a job") and immediately labels it a write operation. It distinguishes itself from near-neighbors by naming create_candidate, add_prospect, and post_candidate as different flows, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and resolution steps: candidate must already exist, resolve candidate via search_candidates_by_name and job via list_jobs. It also names the alternatives and the condition that selects each (create_candidate for one-step creation, add_prospect for sourced prospects, post_candidate for partner submissions).

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