Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the job ID doesn't exist. For a read tool with zero 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 perfectly concise at 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted language. Every word ('Get', 'single', 'job', 'by', 'ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), a single parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about usage, behavior, and parameter details that would be helpful for an agent. For a simple read operation, this is the bare minimum.

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 'job_id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description adds minimal semantics (it's an ID) but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to obtain valid IDs. This meets the baseline for a single parameter tool but doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single job by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job_opening' or 'get_job_post', which might retrieve similar job-related data through different mechanisms or scopes.

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 'list_jobs' (for multiple jobs), 'get_job_opening', or 'get_job_post', there's no indication of when this specific single-job retrieval is appropriate versus other job-related get operations.

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