Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Greenhouse MCP

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

retrieve_prospect_pools

List partner-scoped prospect pools from Greenhouse via the Ingestion API. Use this read-only tool to view available pools without modifying data.

Instructions

List prospect pools via the Ingestion API. Read-only.

Partner-scoped version of list_prospect_pools.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "retrieve_prospect_pools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully declares 'Read-only' and names the Ingestion API, which is real behavioral value, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or authentication/partner-scope requirements.

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?

Three short fragments, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the safety trait, then the sibling differentiation. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and read-only status disclosed, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any partner-scope authentication context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and it does not attempt to invent parameter behavior.

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 ('List prospect pools') and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling list_prospect_pools by naming itself the 'Partner-scoped version'. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Partner-scoped version of list_prospect_pools' gives a clear condition for choosing this tool over its sibling, and 'via the Ingestion API' indicates the calling context. It stops short of explicitly stating when NOT to use it or what a partner scope concretely means.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools