Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect (prevents login) but omits critical details: whether this is reversible (via 'enable_user'), permission requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a destructive tool, 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 waste. It front-loads the core action and effect, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (destructive user operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the purpose and effect but misses behavioral context like reversibility and permissions. The output schema may cover return values, reducing the burden, but key operational details are omitted.

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%, but the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema implies (a user_id is needed). It doesn't explain what 'user_id' represents, format, or where to find it. With 1 parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as it minimally acknowledges the need for a user identifier.

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 ('Disable') and resource ('a Greenhouse user'), and specifies the effect ('preventing them from logging in'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'enable_user' by indicating opposite functionality, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all sibling tools.

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 (e.g., 'delete_user', 'update_user'), prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), or consequences beyond login prevention. It mentions the effect but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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