Skip to main content
Glama
benmonopoli

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_pending_approvals

Retrieve pending approvals for a user or organization, and optionally include approvers whose turn has not started yet.

Instructions

List all pending approvals for a user (or org-wide). Read-only.

By default returns approvers whose decision is due now. Each item has approver_id, user_id, user_name, status, request_sent_at, job_id, offer_id, approval_type and approval_flow_id. To find user_id: list_users → match by name or email. Omit user_id to see all pending approvals across the organization.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNoFilter to approvals pending for this user — omit for all pending approvals
include_waitingNoAlso include approvers whose turn hasn't come yet (status 'waiting')

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_waiting
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Also include approvers whose turn hasn't come yet (status 'waiting')",
+  "title": "Include Waiting",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_id / description
      Added value: +"Filter to approvals pending for this user — omit for all pending approvals"
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose 'Read-only.' plus the default filtering behavior ('approvers whose decision is due now') and how include_waiting extends that. It omits permissions/scope requirements and pagination on large result sets, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose and read-only status in the first line, then adds defaults and lookup guidance. The enumerated field list is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, but it is not padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers scope, defaults, the include_waiting extension, and user_id acquisition for a 2-parameter optional-arg read tool with an output schema. The field enumeration is partially redundant with the output schema, and auth/rate-limit context is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it frames what the default result set is and how the user_id lookup should be performed (via list_users). That goes slightly beyond the schema's terse parameter blurbs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all pending approvals') plus scope (per-user or org-wide), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_approvals_for_job and request_approvals. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear operational context: default is approvers due now, omit user_id for org-wide, and a concrete workflow for obtaining user_id (list_users → match by name/email). It does not name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools