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. While 'List' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if there are rate limits, what format the date filters use, or how pagination works. The description mentions date filters but doesn't explain their behavior or format.

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 - a single sentence that communicates the core functionality upfront. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks crucial context about authentication, permissions, pagination behavior, and date formats. For a listing tool with pagination parameters, more guidance would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description only mentions 'optional created date range filters' (covering created_after/created_before). It ignores pagination parameters (per_page, page, paginate) entirely. For a tool with 5 undocumented parameters, this minimal coverage is insufficient - the description should explain pagination behavior and date format expectations.

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 ('all scheduled interviews'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional date range filters, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'list_interviews_for_application' or 'get_interview', which would require 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 multiple interview-related tools in the sibling list (list_interviews_for_application, get_interview), there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific ones. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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