Greenhouse MCP

get_application

Retrieve a single Greenhouse application by ID to view its job, current stage, status, source, rejection reason, custom fields, and attachments with time-limited download URLs.

Instructions

Get a single application by ID. Read-only.

Returns the application with job_name, its current stage (stage_name and job_interview_stage_id — the from_stage_id for moves), status, source_id, rejection_reason_id, custom fields, and its attachments (resume etc., with time-limited download URLs). Users rarely know application IDs. To find one: search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → the applications array has each application's ID and job name. For a complete screening package with resume and location, use screen_candidate.

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": {
      "application_id": "<application_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_application"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`application_id`	Yes	Greenhouse application ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / application_id / description
```
Added value: +"Greenhouse application ID"
```
Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does declare 'Read-only' plus what the response contains (stage identifiers, status, source/rejection IDs, custom fields, attachments with time-limited download URLs). It does not cover auth/permission requirements or error cases, keeping 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 purpose and read-only status, then return contents, then ID-discovery guidance. The enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the structure and ordering are efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the essential workflow context (how to get an ID) and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 application_id as a Greenhouse ID (baseline 3). The description adds genuine value by explaining how to locate an application ID, which the schema does not.

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 (get), resource (a single application), and lookup key (by ID), immediately distinguishing it from list_applications and get_candidate. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly notes that users rarely know application IDs and gives a concrete path to obtain one (search_candidates_by_name -> get_candidate -> applications array), plus names screen_candidate as the alternative when a full screening package is needed. This is true when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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

Deploy Server