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' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), caching/refresh implications (relevant to the 'force_refresh' parameter), or any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a tool with parameters affecting behavior, this is insufficient.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('List all degree types') and doesn't waste space on redundant or vague phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema exists (per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 3 parameters (all undocumented in schema) and no annotations, the description is too minimal—it doesn't address parameter usage, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from siblings. It's adequate for basic understanding but lacks completeness for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'per_page', 'page', or 'force_refresh' mean or how they affect the listing. With 3 undocumented parameters, the description adds zero semantic value beyond the bare 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 action ('List all') and the resource ('degree types available for candidate education records'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar list tools in the sibling set (like list_board_degrees, list_schools, list_disciplines), which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_board_degrees, list_schools), there's no indication of when this specific degree list is appropriate versus other degree-related tools. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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