Greenhouse MCP

create_office

Create a new office in Greenhouse with optional location, parent office for hierarchy, and primary contact. Admin-only write operation for org setup.

Instructions

Create a new office. Write operation — admin only.

For parent_id (optional): list_offices → find parent by name. For the contact: list_users → match by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_office"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Office name
`location`	No	Location string, e.g. 'San Francisco, CA'
`parent_id`	No	Parent office ID for hierarchy — get from list_offices
`primary_contact_user_id`	No	User ID of the office's primary in-house contact

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / location / description

Added value: +"Location string, e.g. 'San Francisco, CA'"

addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"Office name"
```

addedInput schema / properties / parent_id / description

Added value: +"Parent office ID for hierarchy — get from list_offices"

addedInput schema / properties / primary_contact_user_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "User ID of the office's primary in-house contact",
+  "title": "Primary Contact User Id"
+}

Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and admin-restricted, which is valuable, but says nothing about reversibility, failure modes, or side effects beyond creation.

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 the safety-relevant fact (write, admin only), then adds only the two lines of dependency guidance. No redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and parameter coverage is full, so return values and field meanings are already documented. Together with the auth and lookup guidance, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing. Adjusting to 5 given how little remains uncovered.

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 procedural value beyond the schema by prescribing the lookup workflow (list_offices → find parent by name; list_users → match by name) for the two ID parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new office'), clearly distinct from sibling resources like create_department or create_user. It doesn't need to contrast with a near-identical sibling, so the lack of explicit differentiation is minor.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operating context ('admin only') and dependency-gathering guidance — use list_offices to resolve parent_id and list_users to match the contact. It stops short of stating when-not-to-use this tool, but the prerequisites are explicit.

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

Deploy Server