Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., paginated, sorted), error conditions, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse, potentially under-specifying the tool's purpose and usage, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 2 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema present (which reduces need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and parameter meaning, making it insufficient for full agent understanding without external context.

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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., meaning of 'per_page' or 'page'). Since parameters are optional with defaults, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states the action ('retrieve') and resource ('candidates submitted via the Ingestion API'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'candidates' are in this context (e.g., job applicants, data entries) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_candidates' or 'retrieve_ingestion_jobs', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_candidates' or 'retrieve_ingestion_jobs'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering no help in tool selection among siblings.

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