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 discloses that the tool returns base64-encoded content for binary files or plain text, which is useful behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or file size limitations, leaving gaps for a download operation.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage context and examples, and the third explains the return behavior. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 1 parameter with no schema descriptions and an output schema present, the description does a good job covering the tool's purpose, usage, and return format. However, as a download tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or error handling to be fully complete for agent 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'url' parameter should be 'from a candidate's attachments list', adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic string type. This clarifies the source and format expected, though it could specify URL validation or examples.

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 specific action ('Download content') and resource ('from a Greenhouse attachment URL'), with examples of what can be downloaded (resumes, cover letters, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_attachment' or 'read_candidate_resume' by focusing on downloading from URLs rather than creating attachments or reading resumes directly.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('Pass the URL from a candidate's attachments list'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'read_candidate_resume' which might handle resume content differently, though the context is implied through the URL requirement.

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