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 a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sparse detail, it lacks context on permissions, error cases, and differentiation from siblings, leaving room for improvement in guiding an agent effectively.

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 minimal but essential context: it specifies that the single parameter 'offer_id' is used to retrieve an offer by ID. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately by clarifying the parameter's role, though it doesn't detail format or constraints. The baseline is high due to low parameter count.

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 states the basic action ('Get a single offer') and resource ('by ID'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_offers' or 'get_current_offer', leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what an 'offer' entails in this context.

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 such as 'list_offers' for multiple offers or 'get_current_offer' for a specific type. The description implies usage for retrieving a single offer by ID but offers no context on prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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