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. It mentions the optional email invite, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, rate limits, or the response format. 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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional feature. There is no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is an output schema (which should cover return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete: it lacks permission requirements, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. It provides a basic overview but leaves gaps in critical operational 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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds value by naming the parameters (first/last name and email) and hinting at the optional 'send_email' parameter's purpose ('sending an invite'). However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., email format, name length) or the default behavior of 'send_email' (true by default per schema).

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 Greenhouse user') and specifies the core data fields (first/last name and email). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_email_to_user' or 'update_user' by focusing on user creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'enable_user' or other user-related tools beyond the creation aspect.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'optionally sending an invite,' suggesting this tool is for initial user setup. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'update_user' or 'enable_user,' nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or exclusions (e.g., cannot create duplicate users).

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