Retrieve detailed profile information for a specific worker using their worker ID, enabling HR and payroll teams to access contractor data from the Deel platform.
Get detailed information about a specific worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worker_id | Yes | The worker ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered structurally; the description's phrase 'detailed information' adds a mild signal that this returns a full record rather than a summary. It says nothing further about what 'detailed' includes, whether the record can be missing, or any error behavior, so it is only marginally additive.
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, efficiently worded sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read, though 'detailed' is slightly vague filler.
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 one-param read with no output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It does not hint at what fields the worker record contains or how the ID is obtained (likely from list_workers/search_workers), which is the main missing context for invoking 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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents worker_id = 'The worker ID'. The description adds no format hints (e.g., ID source or lookup semantics), so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (worker) with a scoping qualifier ('a specific worker'), so the agent understands it retrieves a single worker rather than a list. However, it does nothing to differentiate from siblings like list_workers, search_workers, or get_entity, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The agent must guess that search_workers/list_workers are the lookup paths and that this tool is the follow-up detail fetch by known ID. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.