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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only and non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose key traits like pagination handling (implied by parameters but not described), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., if it returns all jobs at once or requires pagination). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 jobs') and adds necessary detail ('with optional filters...'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized 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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main filtering aspects but misses pagination and other parameter details. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral context and incomplete parameter coverage keeps it at an adequate level 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions optional filters for status, department, office, and dates, which maps to some parameters (status, department_id, office_id, created_after, created_before), but doesn't cover others like per_page, page, or paginate. This adds partial meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, aligning with a baseline score.

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 ('jobs') with scope ('all'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling list tools like 'list_job_openings' or 'list_board_jobs', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses 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 mentions optional filters (status, department, office, dates), implying usage for filtered listing, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_job_openings' or 'list_board_jobs' from the sibling list. There are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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