Skip to main content
Glama

SUNAGO Matrix

by com.sunago-matrix

Get employees

hr_get_employees
Read-onlyIdempotent

List employees. Sensitive fields (salary, national ID, etc.) are masked unless permitted. Max limit 500 - the response always carries pagination.total (full match count) plus has_more. NEVER count headcount from a single page while has_more is true; use pagination.total.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax 500.
offsetNoRow offset. This tool has no cursor - page with offset.
searchNo
departmentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNo
warningNoPresent only when the page is truncated.
employeesYes
paginationYes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent hints, the description discloses sensitive-field masking, a 500-row limit, the always-present pagination.total and has_more fields, and warns against a common headcount mistake. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three short sentences deliver maximum signal: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by only high-value behavioral and pagination warnings. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential operational details: field masking, hard limit, pagination semantics, and the correct way to count headcount. Since an output schema exists, return-value details do not need to be repeated, and nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%, and the description does not explain the search or department parameters. It does add useful pagination-related context around limit/offset, but that partly duplicates the schema's own limit and offset descriptions, and the undocumented filter parameters remain under-specified.

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 'List employees' with a specific verb and resource, making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hr_get_roles and the employee mutation tools by focusing on listing employee records.

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 description gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list employees, with important pagination guidance about using pagination.total rather than page counts when has_more is true. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but none are necessary given the distinct resource.

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

All SUNAGO Matrix toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern and the descriptions are unusually precise about boundaries. A few near-overlaps remain: projects_get_finance vs projects_get_financials, and notes_create vs crm_log_activity on a deal are both plausible for recording a note on a deal.

Naming Consistency4/5

The domain_prefix_action convention is consistent across nearly all tools, e.g. crm_create_lead, projects_update_risk, timelog_approve_time. Deviations include standalone list_trash, meta tools like whoami/tool_search/tool_invoke, and the confusing projects_get_finance/projects_get_financials pair.

Tool Count1/5

With 105 tools, this far exceeds the 50+ threshold defined as an extreme mismatch. Even for a full ERP/CRM suite, the fine-grained split—39 project tools alone—creates a massive tool-selection surface that is hard for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers CRM, projects, tasks, time/expenses, HR, notes, notifications, contracts, and reporting with create/read/update/delete for most primary entities. Minor gaps exist: crm_log_activity has no read-back path, contracts lack delete/restore, and proposals are intentionally read-only, but agents can work around these.

Resources