Greenhouse MCP

get_activity_feed

Retrieve a candidate's activity timeline with notes, emails, and system events to review their history. Filter entries by creation date when needed.

Instructions

Get a candidate's activity timeline. Read-only.

Users say "show me Sarah's history" or "what's happened with this candidate?" To find candidate_id: search_candidates_by_name. Returns three lists, newest first: notes (notes, interviews, follow-ups and other entries), emails (logged emails with subject, email_from/email_to/email_cc), and activities (system events such as stage changes). Every entry has type, body, created_at, application_id, visibility and user ({id, name}) when a person wrote it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`candidate_id`	Yes	Greenhouse candidate ID
`created_after`	No	ISO 8601 datetime — only entries created after this

Output Schema

TableJSON 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 / candidate_id / description
```
Added value: +"Greenhouse candidate ID"
```

addedInput schema / properties / created_after

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "ISO 8601 datetime — only entries created after this",
+  "title": "Created After"
+}

Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it declares 'Read-only,' describes the return shape (three lists, newest first), and enumerates entry fields. It omits permission/auth requirements and any pagination or result-size behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only note, followed by trigger examples and return structure. Some return-field detail is arguably redundant given an output schema exists, but the text is dense and free of filler.

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?

For a read-only, two-parameter lookup, the description plus schema and output schema cover everything an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing, though it could note pagination or entry-volume behavior for large candidate histories.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by telling the agent to resolve candidate_id via search_candidates_by_name, though it says nothing extra about created_after.

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 ('Get a candidate's activity timeline') and reinforces scope with 'Read-only.' An agent can distinguish this from list_candidates, get_candidate, or add_note_to_candidate without opening any 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?

Provides concrete trigger phrasing ('show me Sarah's history', 'what's happened with this candidate?') and routes the agent to search_candidates_by_name for resolving candidate_id. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or named alternatives for timeline-style queries, but the positive usage 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