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 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the IDs are invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, 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 the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context. Without annotations and with no parameter semantics, it's minimally viable but leaves gaps in usage and behavior that could hinder correct tool invocation.

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 adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It doesn't explain what 'job_id' and 'opening_id' represent or how to obtain them. With 2 parameters and low schema coverage, the baseline is 3 because the schema defines the parameters structurally, but the description fails to compensate with semantic details.

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 'Get a specific opening on a job' clearly states the action (get) and resource (opening on a job), but it's vague about what 'opening' means in this context (e.g., job opening vs. other types) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_job' or 'list_job_openings', which could cause confusion. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving details of a single opening versus listing multiple openings (as in 'list_job_openings') or getting job-level information ('get_job'). The description offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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