Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving a single candidate by ID but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with sensitive candidate data.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks context on behavioral traits and usage scenarios, making it insufficient for optimal agent decision-making.

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 0% description coverage, but the description adds minimal value by specifying 'by ID', which clarifies the purpose of the 'candidate_id' parameter. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., ID format, valid ranges) or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 single candidate by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'get_application', which follow the same pattern, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_candidates' or 'search_candidates_by_email'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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