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 openings' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'openings' entail (e.g., are they job postings, stages, or positions?). The phrase 'optionally filtered by status' hints at functionality but lacks depth on how filtering works or error handling.

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 action ('List all openings for a job') and appends optional functionality. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a read-only list tool, it's passable but could be more informative.

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 descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'filtered by status (open/closed)', which clarifies the 'status' parameter's purpose and possible values. However, it doesn't explain 'job_id' (e.g., what constitutes a valid ID) or provide details on parameter interactions, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 openings') and resource ('for a job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_jobs' or 'list_job_posts' by focusing on openings within a specific job. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_job_stages_for_job' or 'list_approvals_for_job', which are also job-specific list operations.

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 implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by status, suggesting it's for retrieving openings with possible status constraints. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_jobs' (for job listings) or 'list_job_openings' (if there were multiple opening-related tools). No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to siblings are stated.

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