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. While 'List all' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when an invalid question_id is provided. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and only one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain parameter constraints and behavioral expectations. It's complete enough for a basic list operation but leaves important questions unanswered about parameter validity and operational behavior.

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, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions 'a specific demographic question' which provides context for the question_id parameter, but doesn't explain what format or range of values question_id accepts, where to find valid question_ids, or whether there are any constraints. The description adds some semantic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('List all answer options') and the target resource ('for a specific demographic question'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_answer_options' or 'get_answer_option', which appear to be related but not identical operations.

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. There are multiple sibling tools dealing with answers and answer options (list_answer_options, get_answer_option, list_answers, etc.), but the description offers no comparison or context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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