Greenhouse MCP

create_user

Create a new Greenhouse user account as an admin, then grant job access with add_job_permission or add_future_job_permission.

Instructions

Create a new Greenhouse user account. Write operation — admin only.

After creating, use add_job_permission to grant access to specific jobs, or add_future_job_permission for automatic access to new jobs.

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": {
      "first_name": "<first_name>",
      "last_name": "<last_name>",
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "create_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	User's email address — must be unique in Greenhouse
`job_title`	No	Job title on the user's profile
`last_name`	Yes	User's last name
`first_name`	Yes	User's first name
`office_ids`	No	Offices to assign the user to — get from list_offices
`send_email`	No	Send an invitation email to the new user
`department_ids`	No	Departments to assign the user to — get from list_departments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / department_ids

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Departments to assign the user to — get from list_departments",
+  "title": "Department Ids"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / email / description

Added value: +"User's email address — must be unique in Greenhouse"

addedInput schema / properties / first_name / description
```
Added value: +"User's first name"
```

addedInput schema / properties / job_title

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Job title on the user's profile",
+  "title": "Job Title"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / last_name / description
```
Added value: +"User's last name"
```

addedInput schema / properties / office_ids

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Offices to assign the user to — get from list_offices",
+  "title": "Office Ids"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / send_email / description

Added value: +"Send an invitation email to the new user"

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 carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that this is a write operation and admin-restricted, which the agent needs. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether an invitation email is sent by default, error conditions (e.g., duplicate email), or what happens to permissions at creation time.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core operation and the admin constraint before the follow-up workflow guidance.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation type, authorization requirement, and next-step workflow. It could do slightly more on side effects like the default invitation email, but is largely complete for a create tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (including office_ids/department_ids sourcing hints and send_email default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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 Greenhouse user account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like update_user, disable_user, and create_candidate. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Adds explicit prerequisites ('admin only') and routes the agent to the two follow-up permission tools with the condition that separates them (specific jobs vs. automatic access to new jobs). It does not state when to prefer this over other creation tools, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server