Retrieves a single Accelo staff member by ID, optionally including extra fields. Use it to look up employee details for staffing, assignments, or CRM records.
Get a single staff member by ID.
Args: id: Staff ID fields: Additional fields to return
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| fields | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions required, error behavior when the ID does not exist, or what a returned staff record contains.
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?
The description is two short pieces: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by an Args list. Every line is relevant and there is no wasted text.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should provide return-shape or access details. For a simple get-by-ID tool it states the basic operation, but leaves gaps around what a staff record includes and what happens on failure.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters with brief labels, but 'id: Staff ID' mostly restates the schema title and 'fields: Additional fields to return' is vague about accepted values or format, so compensation is only partial.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single staff member by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/count/create/update staff tools and from accelo_get_current_staff. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for looking up one known staff member, which is adequate usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of accelo_list_staff or accelo_get_current_staff, and gives no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.