hr_get_rolesList the roles defined in the caller's workspace, as set up under Role Management in Matrix. These are the only values hr_create_employee and hr_update_employee accept for role - roles are per workspace, so never assume a role exists because another workspace has it. super_admin is listed if the workspace has it but cannot be granted through MCP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this read-only behavior. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotation: roles are workspace-scoped, come from Role Management, and super_admin has a special limitation even when listed. A small gap remains around the exact return shape, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is sufficient.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and source, the second links the result to related tools and warns about cross-workspace assumptions, and the third handles the edge case of super_admin. No redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description covers scope, source, related tools, workspace-specificity, and a special-case role. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing; the absence of an output schema is acceptable because the result is a straightforward list of role values.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the result's meaning rather than input semantics.
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 function: listing roles defined in the caller's workspace. It names the specific resource (roles under Role Management in Matrix) and distinguishes itself from related HR tools by explaining its role in employee creation/updating.
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 explicitly tells agents when to use this tool: to discover valid role values for hr_create_employee and hr_update_employee. It also provides a critical when-not: never assume a role exists based on another workspace, and notes that super_admin cannot be granted through MCP.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.