Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no job posts exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 the need to describe return values), simple parameters, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context about usage guidelines and behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an AI agent, especially with no annotations to fill those 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 'a specific job' which aligns with the single 'job_id' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter format, constraints, or examples. It provides minimal semantic context beyond what's obvious from the parameter name.

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 job posts') and the target resource ('associated with a specific job'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_job_posts' or 'get_job_post_for_job', 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. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'list_job_posts', 'get_job_post_for_job'), but the description doesn't mention any of them or explain when this specific filtered listing is appropriate.

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