Retrieve and filter staff members from Accelo by ID, email, standing, or username, with support for custom fields and pagination.
List staff members from Accelo.
Args: filters: Filter dict. Keys: id, email, standing, username fields: Additional fields, e.g. "email,title,mobile" page: Page number (0-indexed) limit: Results per page (max 100)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| filters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions pagination details (0-indexed page, max limit 100) and filter keys, but omits read-only safety, auth requirements, rate limits, and return behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then a short args block. It wastes little space, though the raw docstring formatting is slightly less polished than ideal.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the definition is partially complete: parameters are covered, but usage guidance, safety profile, and return expectations are missing. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps for an agent.
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 usefully documents all four parameters, including filter keys, a fields example, and pagination constraints, though filter value syntax and operators remain unspecified.
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 clear verb (list) and resource (staff members from Accelo). It is easily distinguishable from get/count staff siblings by operation type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope exclusions.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to siblings like accelo_get_staff or accelo_count_staff. The only implied usage is that it lists staff, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.