Search for workers by name, email, or partial match to locate HR records in Deel, with pagination for browsing results.
Search for workers by name or email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| query | Yes | Search query (name, email, or partial match) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no note on match semantics (partial/prefix vs exact despite the schema), no pagination behavior, no result ordering. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description still leaves the read behavior under-described.
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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler and the key concept (worker search) front-loaded. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse to carry much value.
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 3-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint annotation, this is minimally adequate. The lack of sibling disambiguation and matching semantics leaves a small but real gap given there are several other worker tools.
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%, with query, limit, and offset all documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'name or email' phrasing merely restates the query parameter's schema description and adds no format or matching detail.
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 ('Search') and resource ('workers') plus the matching fields (name, email), which is enough to know what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like list_workers, get_worker, or invite_worker, so an agent must infer the boundary between searching and listing.
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 indication of when to use this versus list_workers (browse-all) or get_worker (single lookup by id), and no prerequisites or exclusions given. The matching-by-name-or-email hint implies usage but does not state it as a selection rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.