Describe any curated Oracle HCM resource by name, such as workers or planBalances, to view its schema, fields, and metadata for accurate API usage.
Describe a curated resource by name (workers, planBalances, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Resource name, e.g. workers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it implies the tool returns a description or schema, but the exact return format is not disclosed. This is acceptable but not 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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Describe a curated resource by name') and gives examples. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool is a simple metadata/descriptor with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention what 'describe' returns (e.g., a schema, a list of fields, etc.), which could leave the agent uncertain about the output format. Since the output schema is absent, a little more detail would be beneficial.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the parameter 'name' with a clear description and example. The description repeats the example, providing little additional value. However, it does reinforce that the name should be a curated resource name, which is slightly more specific.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to describe a curated resource by name. It gives examples like 'workers' and 'planBalances', making it specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hcm_describe_finder or hcm_list_resources, though the intent is inferable.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it's for metadata/introspection versus actual data retrieval, nor does it list any exclusions or conditions. The agent must infer from the name and examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.