Rippling MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific resources like employees, groups, leave, or company data. However, list_employees and list_all_employees could cause confusion as both list employees, with the latter including terminated ones, which might lead to misselection if the agent doesn't carefully read descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_group, list_employees, get_company, and process_leave_request. All use snake_case with clear, predictable naming conventions, making the set easy to navigate.
Tool Count4/5
With 19 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for an HR/employee management domain, covering groups, employees, leave, and company details. It's well-scoped without being excessive, though it borders on feeling heavy compared to typical 3-15 tool ranges.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for HR operations, including CRUD for groups, extensive employee listing and search, leave management with balances and requests, and company/department/team structures. No obvious gaps exist for core workflows in this domain.
Average 3.1/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create a new group', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like idempotency. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially for a mutation operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters (name, spokeId, userIds) documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'specified members' relates to 'userIds', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new group'), specifying that it includes 'specified members'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'list_groups' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation-related tools if they existed, though none are present in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to siblings like 'update_group' for modifying existing groups. Usage is implied by the verb 'Create', but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a group, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., impact on associated employees). No information on authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions is included, leaving significant gaps for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource ('group'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation message, error if group doesn't exist), permissions required, or system constraints. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'groupId' documented as 'The group ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find group IDs. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a group by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_group' and 'update_group' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'group' refers to in this context (e.g., employee group, project group), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., group must exist, user must have permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete groups with active members), or related tools like 'list_groups' for verification. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states what types of events are included but doesn't describe response format, pagination, ordering, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a real-time or historical feed. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource and providing concrete examples. No redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the activity events come in, whether results are paginated, what fields are included, or how this differs from other employee-related tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides about date filtering and limits. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained how parameters interact (e.g., date range required).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'company activity events' with specific examples (employee changes, onboarding, offboarding). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like get_company or get_employee by focusing on activity events rather than static data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_* tools that might also retrieve activity-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_employees, search_employees, and get_employee, there's no indication whether this tool is for historical events versus current state, or how it relates to leave-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves information without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Get detailed information for a specific employee') without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 a read operation with potential complexity (e.g., what 'detailed information' entails), the description is insufficient. It doesn't address return values, error cases, or behavioral context needed for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'employeeId' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to fetch employee data, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information for a specific employee'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_employees' or 'search_employees', which reduces it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_employees' or 'search_employees'. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like pagination handling or return values, which are crucial for a tool with pagination parameters. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for adequate coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('custom field definitions configured in Rippling'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'list_teams' beyond the resource name, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'get_employee' or 'search_employees' that might overlap in functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions hierarchical structure, which adds some context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema), or output format. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful detail (hierarchical structure), making it appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 a simple list operation, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication needs, response format, error handling, or how the hierarchical structure is represented, which are critical for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the limit and offset parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a list operation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('departments in the organization'), specifying the hierarchical structure. It distinguishes from siblings like list_employees or list_groups by focusing on departments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_groups or list_teams might overlap in organizational context, but the description offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (beyond the schema's limit/offset parameters), what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key capabilities. Every word earns its place - 'List leave requests' establishes the core function, and 'with optional filters for status, date range, and requester' provides essential context without redundancy. There's zero waste or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, response format, pagination behavior beyond the schema parameters, or error conditions. For a filtering/list tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, more contextual information would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and constraints. The description mentions 'optional filters for status, date range, and requester' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already in the structured fields. The baseline of 3 is appropriate 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('leave requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other leave-related tools like 'get_leave_balances' or 'process_leave_request' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving balances or processing requests. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_employees' or 'list_teams' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_leave_requests' versus 'get_leave_balances' for leave-related queries, or when filtering is necessary versus using other list tools. There's no discussion of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for this tool's use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the results return, whether results are paginated (though parameters suggest pagination), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should do more to compensate. While the purpose is clear, there's no information about what the tool returns, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how position levels relate to the broader organizational context. For a tool in a system with many sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit and offset) clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('position levels') with specific examples ('Manager, Executive, Individual Contributor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like list_departments or list_teams, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like list_departments and list_teams available, there's no indication of how position levels relate to or differ from these other organizational structures. The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('approve or decline') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens after processing (e.g., notifications sent), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, nor does it provide usage context relative to sibling tools. For a tool that modifies data, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (requestId and action with enum values). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for requestId or consequences of each action choice. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('approve or decline') and resource ('a pending leave request'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'update_leave_request' or explain how it differs from simply modifying leave request status through other means, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending request), exclusions (e.g., not for already processed requests), or relationships to sibling tools like 'list_leave_requests' (which might provide request IDs). Without this context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states this is an update operation (implies mutation) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing members when userIds is provided. The phrase 'replaces existing members' in the schema is helpful but not in the description itself.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and every part earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While concise, it lacks necessary context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (groupId, name, userIds). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'name or members' which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('an existing group'), specifying what can be updated ('name or members'). It distinguishes from create_group (updates existing vs creates new) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other sibling tools like delete_group or list_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing group ID), exclusions, or compare with other update-related tools that might exist in the sibling list. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the employee doesn't exist. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'roleId' documented as 'The employee's role ID to get leave balances for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get leave balances for a specific employee including PTO, sick leave, and other leave types'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('leave balances'), and scope ('specific employee'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_leave_requests' or 'list_leave_types', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., employee must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_leave_requests' or 'get_employee', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all groups' implies a read operation, but it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or what happens when no groups exist. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This represents optimal efficiency for a simple tool description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar listing tools as siblings, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'groups' means in this context, how results are returned, or how this differs from other organizational listing tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description accurately reflects that no parameters are needed ('List all groups'), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all groups in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'list_teams' which might also list organizational units, though the resource specificity ('groups') provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_all_employees', 'list_employees', and 'search_employees', there's no indication of how 'list_groups' relates to these or when it's the appropriate choice for organizational data retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' details, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient, as it misses key behavioral traits beyond the basic read implication.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get current company details') and adds specific examples ('including name, address, and locations') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what is retrieved but lacks details on return format, error handling, or authentication needs. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the response structure, but it doesn't, making it minimally viable but incomplete for full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for this case, as it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters that don't exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current company details', specifying what information is retrieved (name, address, and locations). It distinguishes from siblings like get_employee or get_company_activity by focusing on company metadata rather than employee data or activity logs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare with similar tools like list_work_locations or other get_* tools. This lack of explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations results in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. It's minimal and lacks critical operational details.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool with zero parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like response structure or usage context, which are needed for full agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the resource ('leave types') and examples ('PTO, sick, etc.'), which clarifies semantics beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all leave types configured for the company'), with examples ('PTO, sick, etc.') that clarify scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_leave_requests' or 'get_leave_balances', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_leave_requests' or 'get_leave_balances'. The description implies usage for retrieving leave type configurations but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'subteam relationships' which hints at hierarchical data, but fails to describe critical behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all teams' entails (e.g., active only, archived included). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful qualifier ('with subteam relationships'), making it optimally concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies the scope of data returned but omits behavioral details like response format, error handling, or system constraints that would help an agent use it effectively in real scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids redundant parameter details, earning a high baseline score for not cluttering with unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all teams') and specifies the scope ('with subteam relationships'), which distinguishes it from generic listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_groups' or 'list_departments', preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_groups' or 'list_departments'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists all work locations' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination), or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all work locations') and adds a useful detail ('with addresses') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, format) and usage context. With no output schema, it partially compensates by mentioning addresses, but more completeness would require guidance on when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by clarifying that addresses are included in the output, which isn't in the schema. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, but doesn't fully address output semantics (no output schema exists).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('work locations') with a specific attribute ('with addresses'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_departments' or 'list_teams' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for retrieving all locations at once versus filtered lists, or how it relates to tools like 'get_company' that might include location data. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and return format details (name, title, department, work email), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or whether 'active' is a filter or default state, leaving gaps for a mutation-free tool.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second specifies return details, making it efficiently front-loaded and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, 'active' filter implications, and differentiation from siblings, leaving room for improvement given the server's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying pagination through 'with pagination', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active employees') with specific scope ('with pagination'), distinguishing it from generic listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'list_all_employees' or 'search_employees', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_employees' or 'search_employees'. It mentions 'active employees' but doesn't clarify if this is a filter or default behavior, leaving usage context ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it 'fetches all active employees and filters client-side,' which adds useful context about the tool's behavior (e.g., it retrieves all active data first, then applies filtering). However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like performance implications of client-side filtering, error handling, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key behavioral detail. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with client-side filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and a key behavioral trait but lacks details on output format, error cases, or performance considerations. For a search tool with no structured output documentation, more context would be beneficial to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the searchable fields (name, email, title, department), which aligns with the schema's description for 'query.' No additional parameter semantics are provided, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search employees by name, email, title, or department.' It specifies the verb (search) and resource (employees), and mentions the searchable fields. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_employees' or 'get_employee', which reduces clarity about when to use this versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating it 'fetches all active employees and filters client-side,' suggesting it's for searching within the full active employee set. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_employees' (which might list without filtering) or 'get_employee' (which might fetch a single employee by ID). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions including terminated employees, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), authentication needs, rate limits, or what data fields are returned. For a list operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and key differentiator (including terminated employees). The second sentence provides usage context efficiently. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and scope but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what employee data is returned, how pagination works beyond parameters, or any error conditions. For a list operation with 3 parameters and no structured output documentation, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, offset, ein). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all employees'), specifying it includes terminated ones for complete workforce history. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_employees' by explicitly including terminated employees, making the scope unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('useful for complete workforce history'), implying it's for historical data including terminated employees. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'list_employees' (which presumably excludes terminated ones), missing explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rippling-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bifrost-mcp/rippling-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bifrost-mcp/rippling-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rippling-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bifrost-mcp/rippling-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/bifrost-mcp/rippling-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bifrost-mcp/rippling-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server