clover-mcp

get_employee

Read-only

Fetch a specific employee's details by ID via the Clover POS API, excluding PINs. Requires employee read permission.

Instructions

Return a single employee by ID (PINs never returned). Requires EMPLOYEES_R.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "employee_id": "<employee_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_employee"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`employee_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds value by disclosing that PINs are never returned and that a specific permission (EMPLOYEES_R) is required. This goes beyond the annotations and is consistent with them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each carrying essential information: the core purpose and two key constraints (PINs and permission). No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it does, the input, a data privacy guarantee, and access requirements. It does not describe error behavior, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented employee_id parameter. It does not: the description merely says 'by ID', which adds nothing over the schema's property name and type. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to provide format, source, or examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific action (return), the resource (a single employee), and the method (by ID). It clearly distinguishes from list_employees (which returns multiple employees) and get_sales_by_employee/get_tips_by_employee (which return related data rather than the employee record itself).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you have an employee_id and need a single employee, and it explicitly states the required permission (EMPLOYEES_R). However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly say 'instead of list_employees', though the singular context makes the intended usage clear.

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

Deploy Server