Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite pagination parameters in the schema), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'force_refresh' entails. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic list tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, behavioral traits like pagination, or usage context. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but other gaps remain significant.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying it lists offices, failing to explain 'per_page', 'page', 'paginate', or 'force_refresh'. With low coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 offices in the organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_office' (which likely retrieves a single office) or 'list_board_offices' (which might have a different scope), 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'list_offices' over 'get_office' (for a single office) or 'list_board_offices' (which might be board-specific), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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