Greenhouse MCP

delete_job_opening

Delete a job opening from Greenhouse by job ID and opening ID; destructive and irreversible, so confirm before removing.

Instructions

Delete a job opening. Destructive — cannot be undone.

To find job_id: list_jobs → match by name. To find opening_id: list_job_openings on the job.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "opening_id": "<opening_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_job_opening"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes	Greenhouse job ID
`opening_id`	Yes	Opening ID to delete

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
```
Added value: +"Greenhouse job ID"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / opening_id / description
```
Added value: +"Opening ID to delete"
```
Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the critical irreversibility ('Destructive — cannot be undone'), but does not mention required permissions, side effects on related applications, or failure conditions.

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?

The description is two tight sentences: the destructive warning is front-loaded, and ID discovery instructions follow immediately. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the destructive mutation, no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers the action, irreversibility, and ID lookup. However, it omits authorization requirements and side effects that an agent should know before deletion.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to discover the required job_id (via list_jobs, matched by name) and opening_id (via list_job_openings on the job).

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a job opening.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with bulk_delete_job_openings or other sibling deletion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides helpful prerequisite guidance for obtaining job_id and opening_id, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as bulk_delete_job_openings or delete_candidate.

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

Deploy Server