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 that returns multiple items, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no fields match the filter. For a listing 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 perfectly concise at 11 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List all custom fields') and efficiently adding the optional filtering capability in a parenthetical. Every word serves a purpose with zero redundancy 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 this is a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema exists (which handles return value documentation), the description provides adequate context for basic usage. The combination of clear purpose, parameter hint, and output schema coverage makes this reasonably complete for its complexity level, though behavioral transparency could be improved.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by mentioning the 'field_type' parameter and providing examples of possible values ('candidate, job, etc.'), which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's optional nature or provide complete enumeration of all possible field types.

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 custom fields') and resource ('custom fields'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than creation or deletion, which is appropriate given sibling tools like 'create_custom_field' and 'delete_custom_field'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'list_custom_field_options'.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning the optional 'field_type' filter parameter, suggesting this tool can be used when filtering by field type is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_custom_field' (for a single field) or provide context about when filtering is appropriate versus retrieving all fields.

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