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 mentions date range filtering but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a list operation with 5 parameters, 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core purpose.

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?

While an output schema exists (relieving the description from explaining return values), the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description only partially addresses the parameter gap and lacks behavioral context, making it minimally adequate but 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 only mentions 'created date range filters' (covering 'created_after' and 'created_before'), leaving 3 parameters ('per_page', 'page', 'paginate') completely undocumented. The description adds minimal value beyond what parameter names suggest.

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 interview scorecards'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'list_scorecards_for_application' or 'get_scorecard', which might handle more specific retrieval scenarios.

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 created date range filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_scorecards_for_application' or 'get_scorecard'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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