Retrieve HR lifecycle events for an employee, including promotions, transfers, and leaves. Filter by event type or limit results to track personnel changes.
Get HR lifecycle events for an employee (promotions, transfers, leaves)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| event_type | No | Filter by type: promotion, transfer, leave, onboarding, offboarding | |
| employee_sys_id | Yes | Employee user sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the event-type scope, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or return structure, so it provides only modest extra transparency beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler. Length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 simple read-only list tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits onboarding and offboarding from the event-type examples even though the schema includes them, which could mislead. It also doesn't clarify the return format, though no output schema exists.
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 documentation covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit, event_type, and employee_sys_id. The description's mention of event types largely duplicates schema info and adds no new parameter semantics.
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 clearly identifies the operation ('Get') and the resource ('HR lifecycle events for an employee'), and lists representative event types (promotions, transfers, leaves). This distinguishes it from sibling HR tools focused on cases, tasks, or profiles.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving employee lifecycle events but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over related HR tools like list_hr_tasks or get_hr_case. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.