Greenhouse MCP

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 mentions authentication requirements ('Requires API key for auth'), which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this is a write operation (implied by 'submit'), potential side effects, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, front-loading the main action ('Submit an application') and adding a critical constraint ('Requires API key for auth'). There is no wasted text, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 4 required, mutation tool) and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, detailed behavioral context, and usage differentiation from siblings. However, it does cover authentication and the core action, providing a minimal but not fully adequate foundation.

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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters, their meanings, or how they relate to submitting an application (e.g., job_id for targeting, personal details, optional attachments). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 verb ('submit') and resource ('application through the job board'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_application' or 'post_candidate', which appear to have similar functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'Requires API key for auth,' but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_application' or 'post_candidate' from the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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