Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates or replaces an approval flow, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent ('replace' suggests possible overwriting), what happens on failure, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and key parameters, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element ('create or replace', 'approval flow', 'job', 'type and approver groups') earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 (mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies the resource and main parameters, and an output schema exists (which may cover return values), reducing the burden. However, it misses behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and full parameter semantics, leaving gaps for safe and effective 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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'type and approver groups', which partially covers two of the three parameters (approval_type, approver_groups), but omits 'job_id' entirely. It doesn't explain what approval types are valid, the structure of approver groups, or how job_id is used, leaving key semantics unclear.

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 or replace') and resource ('approval flow for a job'), making the purpose evident. It specifies the target (job) and key parameters (type and approver groups), which helps distinguish it from general creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_approval_flow' or 'list_approvals_for_job', which would require a 5.

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 job), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'update' operations. Without such context, users must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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