Get a worker's verified work passport — task counts, lists worked, photos submitted, GPS-verified hours, points, streaks, and earned merit badges, all computed from real completion data (not self-reported). Includes the shareable profile URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worker_id | Yes | Worker ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: data is 'computed from real completion data (not self-reported)', which aids trust and understanding of data provenance. This goes beyond what annotations provide, justifying a 4.
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 two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and listing key output elements without any redundant or filler content. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns: task counts, lists worked, photos, GPS hours, points, streaks, badges, and a shareable profile URL. For a simple single-parameter retrieval tool, this covers all essential aspects an agent needs to understand the output.
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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'worker_id' (described as 'Worker ID'). The description does not add any further meaning or format details for this parameter, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not exceeding it.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'worker's verified work passport', listing specific contents such as task counts, photos, GPS hours, and badges. This distinguishes it from sibling get tools for events, projects, etc., and uniquely identifies what this tool retrieves.
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 a comprehensive worker passport but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getting raw task or event data. No 'when not to use' or direct comparisons to siblings are provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
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 map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
