Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Create a new job', implying a write operation, but does not cover permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, missing critical behavioral details.

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 and lists key optional parameters without waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on required parameters, behavioral traits, and full parameter semantics, making it inadequate for proper tool invocation in this context.

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. It mentions optional 'name, department, and offices', which partially maps to parameters like 'job_name', 'department_id', and 'office_ids', but omits 'template_job_id' (required), 'number_of_openings', 'job_post_name', and 'requisition_id'. This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add sufficient meaning.

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 job') and resource ('from a template'), and mentions optional fields. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_job_opening' by focusing on template-based creation, though not explicitly. However, it lacks specific differentiation from all siblings, keeping it at 4.

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 'create_job_opening' or 'update_job'. It mentions optional parameters but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection among siblings, leaving usage unclear.

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