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 mentions listing options but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), pagination, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which should define return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it only partially complete for effective agent use.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the parameter is for a 'dropdown/multi-select custom field'. This clarifies the type of field involved, partially compensating for the schema gap. However, it does not detail the parameter's expected format or constraints beyond the implied ID usage.

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 ('all options for a dropdown/multi-select custom field'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_custom_fields' or 'get_custom_field', which might list fields themselves rather than their options, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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. For instance, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid custom_field_id) or compare to tools like 'get_custom_field' that might retrieve field details including options. The description lacks context for selection among related list operations.

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