onboarding_hire_listEvery hire with their role, start date, task counts, percent complete and overdue count. Filter by role or by a word in the name. Returns at most 500 rows, newest change first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | Only hires in this role, matched after the same lower-case hyphenation applied on add | |
| contains | No | Only hires whose name contains this text, matched case-insensitively |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds the 500-row limit and 'newest change first' ordering, which are not visible in the schema. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though the list framing strongly implies this; there is no direct contradiction with 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 description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the returned fields, then states filtering, then the row cap and ordering, making every sentence informative and easy to scan.
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?
With only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential call-time facts: what fields are returned, how to filter, the maximum result size, and the sort order. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but for a simple list tool with no required parameters this is not a critical gap.
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?
Both parameters are already fully documented in the JSON schema, including lower-case hyphenation matching for role and case-insensitive contains for name, so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'Filter by role or by a word in the name' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 clearly states that the tool returns hire information with role, start date, task counts, percent complete, and overdue count. The listed fields and 'Every hire' framing distinguish it from focused sibling tools like onboarding_overdue or onboarding_progress. It would be stronger with an explicit verb, but the title 'List hires' supplies that action.
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 explains how to narrow results via role or name filter and notes the 500-row cap, which gives useful invocation context. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with siblings such as onboarding_overdue, onboarding_progress, or onboarding_hire_add, so when-to-use versus alternatives is only implied.
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.