Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dry-run nature (non-destructive) and that it operates on the most recent event, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Dry-run a rule', 'most recent matching event', 'Shows what would happen') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 moderate complexity (testing rules), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and dry-run behavior but lacks details on parameters, error cases, and integration with sibling tools, making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'rule_id' undocumented. The description adds no information about this parameter—such as what a rule ID is, where to find it, or format constraints—failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('Dry-run a rule') and the target ('against the most recent matching event'), with the outcome ('Shows what would happen'). It uses specific verbs and resources, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like webhook_list_rules or webhook_update_rule, which prevents 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 implies usage for testing rules without execution, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like webhook_list_recent or webhook_create_rule. It lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage somewhat open to interpretation.

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