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 implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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's low complexity (single parameter, read operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 mentions 'for a specific application', which aligns with the single parameter 'application_id'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds basic context about the parameter's purpose but doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer ID) or where to find the ID, resulting in adequate but incomplete parameter semantics.

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 for a specific application'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_interviews' (which likely lists all interviews without application filtering) or 'get_interview' (which retrieves a single interview), missing full sibling distinction.

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 like 'list_interviews' or 'get_interview', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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