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 mentions 'List all' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (despite page/per_page parameters), caching implications (force_refresh parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' means in practice. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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. The parenthetical examples add helpful context without unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information more explicitly.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), but with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description should do more to explain parameter usage and behavioral context. The description is minimally adequate for a simple list operation but leaves important questions unanswered about pagination and refresh behavior.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'List all' but doesn't explain the pagination parameters (page, per_page) or the force_refresh parameter. With 3 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this represents a significant gap in parameter understanding.

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 ('candidate sources'), providing specific examples (job boards, referrals, agencies) that help clarify the domain. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other list_* siblings in the extensive sibling list, which would require a 5.

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, prerequisites, or context for usage. With many other list_* tools available (list_candidates, list_jobs, list_departments, etc.), the absence of any differentiation guidance is a significant gap.

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