workiz_get_team_memberFetch one team member by user id: name, role, field-tech flag, email, service areas, skills and active status. Workiz: GET /team/get/{USER_ID}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | The user's id, from workiz_list_team. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the 'GET /team/get/{USER_ID}' endpoint reference reinforces that. Beyond that the description adds nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, or rate limits, so it clears the lower annotation-backed bar but no more.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the lookup key and returned fields, plus a compact endpoint reference. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the key information comes first.
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 no output schema, the description is the only place listing what comes back (name, role, field-tech flag, email, service areas, skills, active status), which is a genuine contribution. It is nearly complete for a one-param read tool, with only usage guidance thin.
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?
One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already explains the id and its source. The description only restates 'by user id' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one team member by user id') and enumerates the returned attributes, so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is implicitly distinct from workiz_list_team, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.
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?
'by user id' implies this is the single-record lookup to use once you already have an id, and the schema's 'from workiz_list_team' reinforces the chain. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named in the description itself.
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.