Greenhouse MCP

list_custom_fields

Retrieve custom field definitions and resolve custom field names to IDs or name_keys for candidate, application, or offer updates. Filter by active status or field type.

Instructions

List all custom field definitions. Read-only.

Resolves custom field names to IDs. When a user mentions a custom field by name, use this to find its ID (or name_key) for update_candidate, update_application, or update_current_offer. Filter by field_type to narrow results. Dropdown options are separate: list_custom_field_options.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`active`	No	true = live fields only, false = archived only
`field_type`	No	Filter: candidate, application, job, offer, opening, rejection_question, referral_question, user_attribute

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / active

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "true = live fields only, false = archived only",
+  "title": "Active"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / field_type / description

Added value: +"Filter: candidate, application, job, offer, opening, rejection_question, referral_question, user_attribute"

Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 usefully declares 'Read-only', which is the single most important behavioral trait, but says nothing about authentication, pagination, or what the default (no active filter) returns. With an output schema present the return shape is covered elsewhere, so this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Front-loads the identity and read-only nature, then the use case, then the filter, then the sibling exclusion. Four short sentences, each adding distinct routing information with no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, trigger, filter, and sibling separation for a zero-required-parameter read tool with a full output schema. The only gap is the semantics of omitting the active filter (does it include archived fields?), which an agent might need to answer a user's question precisely.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully (active = live vs archived, field_type with its allowed values). The description only restates that field_type narrows results and adds no syntax or default-behavior detail, so 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 all custom field definitions') and goes further to say what the list is FOR: resolving custom field names to IDs. It explicitly separates itself from list_custom_field_options ('Dropdown options are separate'), so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('When a user mentions a custom field by name, use this to find its ID'), names the downstream tools that consume the ID (update_candidate, update_application, update_current_offer), and names the sibling to use instead for options. Nothing is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server