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 likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't specify error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the question set 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 function 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's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes the returned question set), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on usage context, error handling, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'question_set_id' of type integer. The description mentions 'by ID', which adds minimal context about the parameter's purpose but doesn't clarify format constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges) or where to obtain the ID. Since the schema lacks descriptions, the description provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage 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 demographic question set by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_question_sets', which appears to retrieve multiple question sets rather than a single one by ID.

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 'list_question_sets' or 'list_questions_for_question_set'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid question_set_id, or contextual factors like permissions or availability.

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