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. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies data.

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 that front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward update tool.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context and parameter guidance to be fully helpful.

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 description lists the updatable fields (status, close reason, custom fields), which adds meaning beyond the input schema's 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't explain the semantics of these fields (e.g., what values 'status' accepts, what 'close_reason_id' refers to), leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a job opening's status, close reason, or custom fields'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'update_job' or 'update_application', which would be needed for a perfect 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'update_job', 'update_application'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose appropriately.

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