Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('List'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with an output schema, some behavioral context is missing.

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. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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) and only one parameter, the description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool. However, without annotations and lacking usage guidelines or behavioral details, it leaves gaps in understanding when and how to use it effectively.

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?

The description doesn't explicitly mention the 'user_id' parameter, but with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, it's clear from context that listing a user's permissions requires specifying which user. The description compensates adequately by defining what 'future job permissions' means, though it could explicitly reference the parameter.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('user's future job permissions'), with additional context about what these permissions are ('auto-applied to new jobs by office/department'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_job_permissions' or 'get_user', which might list different types of permissions.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_job_permissions' or 'get_user' from the sibling list.

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