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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe other traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the user_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 and resource. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter explanation, it lacks details on behavioral aspects and usage context, making it only adequate overall.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'user_id' implicitly ('granted to a user'), adding some meaning beyond the schema's bare title. However, with one parameter, the baseline is 4, but it doesn't fully explain the parameter's role or constraints, so a score of 3 reflects partial compensation.

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 ('job-level permissions granted to a user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_future_job_permissions' or 'list_user_roles', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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_future_job_permissions' or 'list_user_roles'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing a valid user_id or any access requirements, leaving usage context unclear.

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