Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. It mentions optional fields but doesn't clarify defaults or constraints beyond the schema.

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. It could be more structured by separating required vs. optional parameters, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and doesn't leverage the output schema to explain return values, making it inadequate for safe agent use.

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 but only lists parameter names without explaining semantics, formats, or constraints. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'tags' are or how 'phone_numbers' should be structured, leaving 9 parameters largely undocumented.

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 resource 'new candidate', specifying it's for creating a candidate with name and optional fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_prospect' or 'post_candidate' by focusing on core candidate creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_prospect' or 'post_candidate', nor any prerequisites or context for usage. The description only lists parameters without indicating appropriate scenarios.

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