Skip to main content
Glama

Personio MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Get employee in Personio

personio_get_employee
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get employee in the user's own Personio account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Personio step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Personio Cloud Browser. Personio's official API: Personio has a public REST API and an official MCP server in closed beta (checked 16 Oct 2026).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "personio_get_employee"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the key trait: nothing is opened or changed and no browser session is created — the agent must follow up with browser tools. That is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs, though it doesn't describe the shape of the returned steps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The operational core (returns steps, opens nothing, use browser tools) is useful, but 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' and the API/beta-status aside are filler that dilutes the front-loaded message.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back; it only says 'step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' without indicating whether the steps identify the specific employee, whether it needs an employee ID or name to proceed, or how the agent locates the target record.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero parameters, so there is nothing the schema needs the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name and title say 'Get employee', but the description reveals the tool returns step-by-step guidance rather than employee data. That is a meaningful mismatch an agent could trip over; the real purpose (produce a how-to for Personio UI screens) only becomes clear mid-sentence.

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?

It states the workflow explicitly: call this first, then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the Personio Cloud Browser. It also notes the existence of Personio's API and official MCP server as context, though it doesn't say when to prefer those instead.

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