Find an employee's code by name or email, resolving identity before assigning tasks.
Look up an employee by name or email to resolve their employee_code. Use this before assigning a task when you only know the person's name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that it 'resolves their employee_code', which is useful. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., what if no match or multiple matches), but given the annotations cover safety, this is acceptable. A slightly richer description of behavior would earn 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?
Two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the action and outcome, the second gives usage context. No repetition or filler. The key information is front-loaded.
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 has a simple purpose with no output schema. The description clarifies it returns the employee_code, which is the core need. It doesn't cover error handling or multiple results, but for a lookup tool this is not critical. Given the simplicity and annotations, it is nearly complete; a 5 would require explicit return structure or error semantics.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the parameters are 'by name or email' – meaning either can be used as a search key. However, it does not specify whether both are allowed simultaneously, which takes precedence, or any format requirements. This gives a baseline of 3 for adding some meaning beyond the schema.
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 a specific verb ('Look up'), resource ('an employee'), and outcome ('resolve their employee_code'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like clokio_list_employees and clokio_attendance_for_employee by specifying the purpose is to resolve a code from a name/email, not to list or fetch attendance.
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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use this before assigning a task when you only know the person's name.' This clearly states when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the scenario is specific enough. Could be improved by naming a sibling like clokio_list_employees as an alternative for other cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.