Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the Ingestion API but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format the data returns in, or if there are rate limits. The description is too minimal to provide adequate behavioral context.

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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be more informative while remaining concise, as it currently under-specifies the tool's purpose.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain inputs or return values. However, for a tool with no annotations and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal—it doesn't clarify what 'prospect pools' are or how this tool fits into the broader system, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 ('prospect pools'), but lacks specificity about what prospect pools are or what data they contain. It mentions 'via Ingestion API' which adds some context but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_ingestion_candidates' or 'retrieve_ingestion_jobs' that also use the Ingestion API.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to prospects and candidates (e.g., 'add_prospect', 'convert_prospect', 'list_candidates'), the description doesn't indicate whether this is for bulk retrieval, specific filtering, or other use cases.

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