bamboohr_get_employee_filesGet files in an employee's profile by ID. Returns file names, upload dates, and file types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Employee ID | |
| _apiKey | Yes | BambooHR API key | |
| _subdomain | Yes | BambooHR subdomain |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | Employee profile files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "files": {
+ "description": "Employee profile files",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "File ID",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "File name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "File type/MIME type",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "uploadDate": {
+ "description": "Upload date and time",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-bamboohr-api-key",
+ "_subdomain": "mycompany",
+ "id": 12345
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the return fields (file names, upload dates, file types) but no additional behavioral context like pagination or permission requirements. This is acceptable given the annotations.
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 entire description is one focused sentence: action, resource, and return summary. No wasted words or redundant details.
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?
The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema parameters are fully described ('Employee ID', 'API key', 'subdomain'). The description's 'by ID' merely restates the id parameter, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('files in an employee's profile'), and mentions the input ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_employee and list_employees by focusing on files.
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need an employee's files by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
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.