Resolve a business key to its primary ID via q= query on an allowlisted resource. Input resource, key, value, and optional idField to retrieve the matching primary identifier.
Resolve a Fusion-style uniq key / business key to a primary id via q= on an allowlisted resource.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Field name, e.g. PersonNumber | |
| value | Yes | ||
| idField | No | Primary key field hint | |
| resource | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'allowlisted resource' constraint, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose behavior when the key is not found or when multiple matches occur. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.
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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the operation. Some jargon ('Fusion-style', 'allowlisted', 'q=') is compact but understandable for the domain.
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 the description carries the return-value burden; it does state the output is 'a primary id'. But for a 4-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage, it leaves resource/value semantics and error behavior unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 50% — key and idField have descriptions, but resource and value are undocumented. The description does not clarify what values resource accepts or the format of value, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half of the parameters.
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 operation (resolve a business/uniq key to a primary id) via a specific mechanism (q= query on an allowlisted resource). The verb+resource is clear and the key-to-id purpose distinguishes it from the many search_* siblings, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named. The purpose implies it is for resolving keys before other lookups, but the conditions that would select this tool over search_* tools or hcm_rest_get are left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.