Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'submit via the Ingestion API,' which hints at an external API call but doesn't detail authentication needs, rate limits, side effects (e.g., data creation), or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a write operation.

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 no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 has 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists (though not detailed here), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively invoke this tool without external knowledge.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with 8 parameters including 3 required ones, the baseline is lowered due to lack of semantic guidance, but the description doesn't add value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('submit') and the resource ('a candidate or prospect'), specifying it's done via the Ingestion API. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_candidate' or 'add_prospect' by mentioning the Ingestion API, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_candidate' or 'add_prospect' is provided. The mention of 'Ingestion API' implies a specific context, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios. Usage is implied rather than stated, leaving gaps for the agent.

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