Greenhouse MCP

post_candidate

Submit a candidate via the Ingestion API for partner integrations. Use for external system integrations, not internal recruiter workflows.

Instructions

Submit a candidate via the Ingestion API (partner integration). Write operation.

For internal candidate creation (as recruiter/admin), use create_candidate and create_application instead. This is the partner/integration endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Candidate's email address
`phone`	No	Candidate's phone number
`job_id`	No	Job to apply to — retrieve_ingestion_jobs to find
`resume`	No	Resume content or URL
`source`	No	Source name (free text)
`prospect`	No	True to create as prospect instead of applicant
`last_name`	Yes	Candidate's last name
`first_name`	Yes	Candidate's first name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.5.0Oct 5, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / email / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate's email address"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / first_name / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate's first name"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / job_id / description
```
Added value: +"Job to apply to — retrieve_ingestion_jobs to find"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / last_name / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate's last name"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / phone / description
```
Added value: +"Candidate's phone number"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / prospect / description
```
Added value: +"True to create as prospect instead of applicant"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / resume / description
```
Added value: +"Resume content or URL"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / source / description
```
Added value: +"Source name (free text)"
```
Addedv0.3.4Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait ('Write operation') plus the partner-endpoint framing. However it omits auth requirements, rate limits, idempotency, and duplicate-email behavior for a mutation tool, so meaningful behavioral gaps remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, no waste, and the verb and scope are front-loaded ahead of the alternative routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema and full parameter coverage exist, so return values and params need no further explanation. The description closes the main routing gap versus siblings; only operational details like auth for the partner endpoint are left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters (including cross-references like 'retrieve_ingestion_jobs to find' for job_id). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a candidate') and scopes it precisely ('via the Ingestion API (partner integration)'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools create_candidate and create_application, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-not and names the alternatives: 'For internal candidate creation (as recruiter/admin), use create_candidate and create_application instead. This is the partner/integration endpoint.' The selecting condition (partner vs internal user) is clear, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server