Retrieve all workers in your Deel organization. Filter by status, country, or department and paginate results to manage global HR and payroll records.
List all workers in your Deel organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by worker status | |
| country | No | Filter by country code (ISO 2) | |
| department | No | Filter by department name or 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 safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note on default/maximum page size, no indication of result ordering or volume limits for an organization-wide list.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the routing and pagination context an agent would want.
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 five-parameter, filterable list endpoint with no output schema and several overlapping siblings, the description omits how results are paged, how this differs from search_workers, and whether filtering changes the 'all workers' claim. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 five parameters (limit, offset, status, country, department) are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning and its 'all workers' phrasing slightly obscures the availability of filters, 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 specific verb and resource (list workers) and scopes it to the caller's Deel organization. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_workers or get_worker, and the word 'all' is in mild tension with the filter parameters the schema exposes.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus search_workers (filtered lookup) or get_worker (single record). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.