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 'Get' implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not contradictory.

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 with the core action and scope, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence 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's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete for basic understanding. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'scoped to a particular job', hinting at job_id, but doesn't explain job_post_id or their relationship. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage, though it's not entirely absent.

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 the resource 'a specific job post', with the scope 'scoped to a particular job'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_job_post' (which lacks job scoping) and 'list_job_posts_for_job' (which lists multiple posts). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like 'get_job_post' or 'list_job_posts_for_job'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing both job_id and job_post_id, or when this tool is preferred over a list operation for a single post. Without such direction, usage is unclear.

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