Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves activity data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format/scope of returned data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the activity feed') and specifies the resource and included activity types. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, data format hints) to compensate. It meets basic needs but lacks depth for full understanding.

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 context by specifying that the 'candidate_id' parameter is used to fetch the activity feed for that candidate. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or how it relates to other tools (e.g., if it must match an existing candidate). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the description provides basic meaning but lacks depth.

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 ('Get') and resource ('activity feed for a candidate'), specifying the types of activities included (notes, emails, stage changes). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_candidate' or 'list_candidates' by focusing on activity data rather than candidate details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential activity-related tools like 'list_interviews_for_application', though none are present in the sibling list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid candidate ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools that might retrieve candidate data (e.g., 'get_candidate' for basic info). Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter.

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