Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_custom_field_options

List dropdown options for a custom field by ID, with optional active/archived filtering. Find the field ID via list_custom_fields to retrieve single- or multi-select values.

Instructions

List dropdown options for a custom field. Read-only.

To find custom_field_id: list_custom_fields → match by name. Options have sort_order (was priority) and are returned in that order.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activeNotrue = selectable options only, false = archived only
custom_field_idYesCustom field ID (must be a single_select or multi_select field)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / active
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "true = selectable options only, false = archived only",
+  "title": "Active"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / custom_field_id / description
      Added value: +"Custom field ID (must be a single_select or multi_select field)"
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it does so partially by declaring "Read-only" and disclosing that options are returned in sort_order sequence, a genuine behavioral trait. It omits auth/permission requirements and any pagination or result-size behavior, which keeps it from 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and read-only status, then the prerequisite, then the ordering note. The "(was `priority`)" parenthetical is genuinely useful vocabulary for an agent and nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the ordering claim plus the ID-acquisition path cover the main gaps. Missing only permission/scope context, which matters more here because no annotations backstop the safety profile.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both custom_field_id (single/multi-select constraint) and active (true=selectable, false=archived) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the lineage hint about list_custom_fields for obtaining the ID, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List dropdown options for a custom field") that an agent can immediately match to its intent. It also distinguishes itself from the create/update/delete_custom_field_options siblings by explicitly declaring "Read-only," and names the prerequisite tool explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains how to obtain the required custom_field_id ("list_custom_fields → match by name"), which is actionable prerequisite guidance and effectively routes between the two tools. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_custom_field or when alternatives apply, so it does not reach 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools