Invite a new worker to Deel by sending their name, email, and country; add optional job title, department, or contract details.
Invite a new worker to join Deel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Worker's email address | ||
| country | Yes | Worker's country code (ISO 2) | |
| job_title | No | Job title | |
| last_name | Yes | Worker's last name | |
| first_name | Yes | Worker's first name | |
| contract_id | No | Existing contract to associate | |
| department_id | No | Department ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Invite' implies an email is sent and a pending worker record is created, but the description never states side effects, required permissions, whether the invite is reversible, or what state the worker lands in.
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 with zero waste. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 mutation tool with seven parameters, no annotations beyond a title, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits side effects (invitation email, created record), permission requirements, and the resulting worker status that an agent needs before invoking it.
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%, so all seven parameters (including country as ISO 2 and optional contract_id/department_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or linkage detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource ('Invite a new worker') and names the platform (Deel), so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as update_worker, offboard_worker, or create_contract, which all touch the worker lifecycle.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the correct tool for onboarding vs. creating a contract, nor what condition should select it over list_workers or create_contract.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.