Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the creation action but fails to address critical aspects such as required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the expected response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose and key parameters without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (a creation operation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and full parameter semantics, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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?

The description lists three parameters (name, field_type, value_type), which correspond to the required parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and two additional optional parameters (private, generate_email_token) not mentioned, it provides only partial semantic context. The baseline is 3 because it adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action ('Create a new custom field') and specifies the key attributes involved ('with name, field_type, and value_type'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'create_custom_field_options' or other field-related tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 like 'update_custom_field' or 'create_custom_field_options', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual constraints. It merely states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.

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