Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List all' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is cached (hinted by 'force_refresh' parameter). The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's minimalism is partially excused. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter usage and behavioral expectations to be fully complete for a listing tool.

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 description must compensate. It adds no information about the three parameters (per_page, page, force_refresh) beyond what the schema titles imply. No explanation of parameter purposes, defaults, or effects is provided in the description.

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 resource ('academic disciplines'), with specific context ('available for candidate education records'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_board_disciplines' or 'list_degrees', which appear to serve similar listing functions in the same domain.

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 like 'list_board_disciplines' or 'list_degrees'. The description implies a specific context ('for candidate education records') but doesn't clarify if this is exclusive or how it differs from other discipline-related tools in the sibling list.

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