Retrieve complete employee details from Loyverse POS by employee ID. Use it to look up a specific team member’s profile when you have their UUID.
Get full details of a specific employee by their ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| employee_id | Yes | The employee UUID to look up |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered elsewhere. Beyond that the description adds essentially nothing — no note on what 'full details' includes, whether the lookup errors on a missing ID, or any auth/pagination context.
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 sentence with the resource and key front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add real 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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The vague phrase 'full details' leaves the agent without any sense of the returned shape or error behavior, which the description could have supplied.
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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented as an employee UUID in the schema. The description's 'by their ID' only restates the schema field, 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 (get) and resource (employee) plus the lookup key (ID), which is enough to separate it from list_employees and the other entity getters. It does not explicitly name a sibling or scope constraint, so it falls short of a 5.
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 gives no indication of when to prefer this over list_employees or the other get_* siblings, nor any prerequisites. It simply states what it does; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.