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 this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the office ID doesn't exist. For a tool with zero 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 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. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for a simple retrieval tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely defines the return structure), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter semantics. It meets the baseline for a basic read operation but doesn't provide comprehensive context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds minimal value by implying the 'office_id' parameter is required to fetch a specific office. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or where to obtain valid IDs. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the documentation 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 office by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this as a retrieval operation for a specific office rather than listing offices, which aligns with the sibling tool 'list_offices'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'get_department' or 'get_user' beyond the resource name.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an office ID), compare it to 'list_offices' for browsing, or indicate any contextual constraints. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter, with no explicit instructions.

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