Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't describe what 'recent' means, whether results are paginated, what authentication is required, rate limits, or the format of returned events. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter documentation, it lacks important context about behavioral traits and usage scenarios that would make it more helpful to an AI agent.

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 mentions no parameters, while the schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage. Since the description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides (which is minimal), and there's only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 ('List') and resource ('recent webhook events received by the receiver'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'webhook_list_events' or 'webhook_list_rules', which appear to be related webhook operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'webhook_list_events' or 'webhook_list_rules', nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this tool.

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