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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of the returned custom location data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, 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 has an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a read operation with no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, it's adequate but lacks depth on behavioral aspects like error handling or data scope, leaving room for improvement.

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 'a specific job post', which aligns with the single parameter 'job_post_id' in the input schema. Since there's only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the ID refers to a job post, compensating for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('custom location data for a specific job post'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_job_post' or 'get_job_post_for_job', which might also retrieve job post data but with different scopes or fields.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing job post ID, or contrast it with other tools that might handle location data differently, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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