Paylocity MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context that 'Account and routing numbers are redacted' and lists what fields are visible (type, status, name). However, it omits other critical behavioral traits: error handling (what happens if employeeId is invalid), whether this is idempotent, or rate limiting concerns.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the purpose; the second sentence efficiently communicates data privacy/redaction behavior. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 2 flat parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool retrieves and clarifies the redaction behavior. Minor gap: doesn't explicitly state the return cardinality (single vs. multiple accounts) or format, though 'accounts' plural implies a collection.

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% (both companyId and employeeId have descriptions). The description itself does not mention parameters, but with the schema fully documented, the baseline is 3. The description neither adds parameter semantics nor contradicts the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Get direct deposit accounts for an employee' — clear verb (Get), specific resource (direct deposit accounts), and scope (employee). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_employee (general info), get_pay_statements (pay history), and add_earnings (write operation).

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_employee, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid employeeId). It relies entirely on the tool name to imply appropriate usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.