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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'published' means in this context. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 states the core purpose and key feature ('optional application questions') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that there's an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and low parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter meanings, leaving room for improvement in completeness for effective tool selection.

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 description mentions 'optional application questions,' which correlates with the 'questions' boolean parameter in the schema, adding some semantic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the 'job_id' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description. The description provides marginal value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the required 'job_id' parameter.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a published job'), making the purpose understandable. It also mentions 'optional application questions' which adds specificity about what can be retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_job' or 'get_job_post', which might retrieve different aspects of job data.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_job', 'get_job_post', and 'list_board_jobs', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The mention of 'optional application questions' hints at a feature but doesn't clarify usage context.

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