Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Greenhouse MCP

Greenhouse MCP

by benmonopoli
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

webhook_setup_guide

Generate Greenhouse webhook configuration instructions with exact Dev Center values, event subscriptions, and a locally stored secret for your receiver URL.

Instructions

Generate webhook configuration instructions for Greenhouse. Read-only.

Produces the exact values to enter in Greenhouse UI (Configure > Dev Center

Webhooks) and stores the generated secret key in the local database.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "receiver_url": "<receiver_url>"
    },
    "name": "webhook_setup_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsNoEvent types to subscribe to — omit for all events
receiver_urlYesPublic URL where the webhook receiver is hosted

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / events / description
      Added value: +"Event types to subscribe to — omit for all events"
    • addedInput schema / properties / receiver_url / description
      Added value: +"Public URL where the webhook receiver is hosted"
  2. Addedv0.3.4

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key side effect, 'stores the generated secret key in the local database', and asserts 'Read-only' – but it's ambiguous whether 'read-only' refers to the GitHub operation or the fact that it persists a secret. It doesn't mention secret handling, persistence/overwrite behavior, or return shape. This is helpful but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by a brief detail about what it produces and where. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('Produces the exact values...') but no wasted words.

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?

For a 2-param generator tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource (Greenhouse webhooks), the output (values to enter in the UI), and a key behavioral side effect (secret stored locally). It stops short of naming where the UI path lives in this product vs GitHub, but that's minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents receiver_url ('Public URL where the webhook receiver is hosted') and events ('Event types to subscribe to — omit for all events'). The description adds no new parameter semantics but the baseline for full coverage is 3; the 'exact values to enter' hint about generated output nudges it to a 4 since it clarifies what the tool produces from the params.

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+resource: 'Generate webhook configuration instructions for Greenhouse.' An agent can readily distinguish this from siblings like webhook_create_rule, webhook_list_rules, or webhook_test_rule, which manage rules rather than produce setup instructions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies a setup context but doesn't explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as webhook_create_rule (to create a rule) or webhook_test_rule (to test). The usage case is inferable from the name and purpose, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are named.

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