list_staffReturn all Hogwarts staff members (professors and employees) from the HP API, each with name, house, species, gender, ancestry, patronus, wand, actor, date of birth, and alive status.
This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_staff"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying it returns 'all' records (implying no filtering) and listing the returned attributes, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides modest extra transparency.
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 description is a single sentence that is specific and information-dense. It covers the core purpose and key output fields without any fluff or repetition.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the source (HP API), the subset (staff vs other categories), and the exact fields returned, which is sufficient for an agent to use it 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4. It focuses instead on the output, which 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 clearly states the action ('Return') and resource ('all Hogwarts staff members'), differentiating from sibling tools like list_students and list_characters. It also enumerates the specific fields returned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.
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 implies usage for retrieving staff data, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over sibling list tools (e.g., list_students, list_characters). No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so usage context is only implicit.
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.