List all departments in the organization to retrieve department IDs and hierarchy. Filter by parent department and paginate results for efficient HR data retrieval.
List all departments in the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| parent_id | No | Filter by parent department 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds only the org-wide scope ('in the organization') and does not mention default page size, pagination behavior, or that parent_id can narrow results. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is minimally adequate rather than rich.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is efficient but does not use the available space to convey any additional useful context.
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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a paginated list endpoint the description omits any indication of pagination or filtering behavior, leaving the agent to discover it from the schema alone.
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 limit, offset, and parent_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter usage and even implies no filtering with 'all departments', so the 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 clear verb and resource (list departments) and scopes it to the organization. It doesn't differentiate from siblings explicitly, though the read-only list vs. create_department distinction is obvious from the name. The word 'all' is slightly at odds with the pagination and filter parameters but still conveys the intent.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no hint that results are paginated or filterable. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.