Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool generates a guide and stores a secret key, implying a read-only or informational operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether it modifies any state beyond storage, rate limits, or what the output entails. This is insufficient for a tool with potential side effects like key storage.

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 concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and outcome. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Generate a setup guide') and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be more integrated to enhance flow.

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 (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits parameter explanations, behavioral context like storage implications, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a tool that generates guides and stores keys, more detail is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'receiver_url' or 'events' at all, leaving their purpose and usage undocumented. The description's mention of 'exact values to enter in Greenhouse UI' hints at parameter relevance but fails to specify which parameters correspond to which UI fields or how 'events' should be formatted.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a setup guide for configuring a Greenhouse webhook.' It specifies the verb ('Generate') and resource ('setup guide'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on webhook configuration guidance rather than direct webhook operations (e.g., webhook_create_rule). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, as some may also involve guidance or documentation.

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. It mentions storing a secret key, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to use it over direct webhook tools (e.g., webhook_create_rule), or any exclusions. Without such context, users may struggle to apply it correctly in workflows.

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