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 it's likely read-only, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond what the schema implies), or what happens if filters yield no results. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 that front-loads the core purpose ('List all Greenhouse users') and adds key details about filters. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main purpose and some parameters but lacks behavioral details and full parameter explanations. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the gaps in usage and transparency keep it from being fully adequate.

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 mentions optional filters for email and created date ranges, which maps to the 'email', 'created_after', and 'created_before' parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 6 total parameters, it doesn't explain 'per_page', 'page', or 'paginate', leaving significant gaps. The baseline is 3 due to the schema's lack of descriptions, but the description only partially compensates.

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 ('Greenhouse users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_candidates' or 'get_user', which are related but distinct resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 filters for email and created date ranges, which provides some context for usage, but it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_user' for a single user or 'list_candidates' for candidate users). No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references are provided.

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