Skip to main content
Glama

HR: Get internship

hr_get_internship
Read-only

Read one internship by id with its checkpoints (each checkpoint's label, due date, who it targets — intern/mentor/supervisor/HR — and whether its form was sent and filled). Read-only. Returns {internship: null} when not visible to the caller.

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": {
      "internship_id": "<internship_id>"
    },
    "name": "hr_get_internship"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
internship_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the checkpoint payload and states that {internship: null} is returned when the record is not visible to the caller. It does not expand on permission rules or error behavior beyond that, leaving some gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical efficiently lists checkpoint details without unnecessary repetition. Every sentence adds relevant information.

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?

Given a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned checkpoint structure and the null-on-not-visible case. The missing piece is richer parameter semantics for internship_id, but the overall context is mostly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter, internship_id, has no schema description. The description says 'by id' but does not explain what the ID refers to, how to obtain it, or any format expectations, so it barely compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Read one internship by id') and specifies that checkpoints and their details are included. It clearly distinguishes this single-record read from the sibling list operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Read one internship by id' gives clear implied usage: call this when a specific internship ID is known. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer a sibling list tool or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources