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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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 (single parameter, read-only implied) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance despite the output schema support.

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 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'department_id' in the input schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds basic meaning but doesn't elaborate on ID format, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score due to incomplete compensation.

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 department'), specifying it's retrieved by ID. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'update_department', which would require explicit comparison for a score of 5.

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 like 'list_departments' for multiple departments or 'update_department' for modifications. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, offering minimal direction.

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