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 states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the required job_post_id parameter, doesn't provide usage context among many sibling update tools, and lacks behavioral transparency needed for safe operation. The output schema helps with return values, but the description should do more.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions three parameters (title, location, content) but doesn't explain the fourth parameter (job_post_id) or provide any semantic context beyond field names. No details are given about parameter formats, constraints, or how null values are handled for optional fields.

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 'update' and the resource 'job post', specifying the fields that can be modified (title, location, content). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_job_post_status' which focuses on status changes rather than content updates. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_job' or 'update_job_opening'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a job_post_id), nor does it clarify if this should be used instead of other update tools for job-related modifications. The sibling list includes many update tools, but no context is given for choosing among them.

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