Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Schedule an interview' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether scheduling is reversible, potential conflicts with existing interviews, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 purpose. Every word contributes directly to explaining what the tool does without any fluff or redundancy.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and full parameter semantics needed for a mutation tool with 5 required parameters.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'interviewers and a start/end time' which partially covers 3 of the 5 parameters (interviewer_ids, start, end), but doesn't explain application_id or interview_id at all. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving key parameters unexplained.

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 ('Schedule an interview') and specifies the resource ('for an application') along with key components ('with interviewers and a start/end time'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_interview' or 'delete_interview' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other scheduling-related tools in the sibling list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing application, available interviewers), exclusions, or refer to sibling tools like 'list_interviews_for_application' for checking existing interviews before scheduling.

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