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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. 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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for description details. However, for a tool with no annotations, more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions) would enhance completeness, though the concise purpose statement suffices for basic use.

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 'interview_id' in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no additional parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID parameter) but doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer type, valid ranges) or examples, resulting in adequate but incomplete parameter guidance.

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 scheduled interview by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_interviews' by specifying retrieval of a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools (e.g., 'get_application', 'get_candidate'), which follow the same pattern.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve a specific interview by its ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'list_interviews' or 'list_interviews_for_application'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned, leaving usage contextually inferred rather than explicitly stated.

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