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 of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (handled by 'per_page' and 'page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (a read-only list operation), two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage, behavioral traits, or parameter meaning. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it falls short in providing a complete context for effective tool selection.

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 description adds no information about the parameters beyond what the input schema provides (two parameters: 'per_page' and 'page' with defaults). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description doesn't compensate for this gap. However, since there are only two parameters and the schema is straightforward, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but also doesn't mislead.

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 action ('List all') and resource ('user roles available in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_users' or 'list_custom_fields', which follow similar patterns but target different resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.

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, such as 'list_users' for user details or 'list_custom_fields' for other metadata. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit based on the tool name alone.

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