Greenhouse MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List all close reasons' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'force_refresh' does. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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), no annotations, and a simple read operation with well-documented parameters in the schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about when to use it and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information. The baseline is 3 because the schema fully documents the three parameters (per_page, page, force_refresh) with titles and defaults, though the description adds no semantic value beyond what's in the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('close reasons') with specific context ('used when closing job openings'). It distinguishes from other list tools by focusing on close reasons, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list tools like 'list_rejection_reasons' among siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what other tools might be used for related purposes. It's a standalone statement without contextual usage information.

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