staff_scheduleRetrieves each staff member's working hours and time off by day, to the minute, for a date range, reading one week at a time.
Working hours and time off per staff member and day, to the minute, for a date range. Reads one week at a time, with a pause between weeks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Last day (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| from | Yes | First day (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| fresh | No | Skip the local cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait beyond that: the read is chunked weekly with a pause, implying throttling for large ranges. But 'with a pause between weeks' is ambiguous about who pauses, and the caching behavior implied by the `fresh` parameter is never mentioned, which is the more operationally important omission.
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, front-loaded with the returned data and granularity, with no filler. The second sentence is short but slightly murky rather than wasteful, so it is efficient without being maximally clear.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return granularity ('to the minute') and the weekly chunking constraint, which is important for planning calls. It is not fully complete: the cache/`fresh` interaction and timezone assumptions for 'per day' are unaddressed, both of which matter for a per-day schedule tool.
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%, so `from`, `to` and `fresh` are each documented in the schema. The description reinforces the date-range semantics but says nothing about what `fresh` (skip the local cache) means in practice — how stale the cache can be or when to force a refresh. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 names the exact resource and granularity: working hours plus time off, per staff member, per day, to the minute, over a date range. An agent can tell this is a schedule read rather than a time-off ledger or an agenda. It stops short of naming the siblings it overlaps with (time_off_entries, calendar_agenda, team_resources), so the differentiation is left implicit.
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?
Usage is implied by the data scope, and the second sentence signals that long ranges must be fetched in weekly chunks. However, there is no explicit statement of when this tool beats time_off_entries or calendar_agenda, nor any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.