workday-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Give a colleague feedback

workday_give_feedback

Submit feedback for a colleague in Workday, optionally with a badge and sharing visibility, after previewing and confirming the post to their profile.

Instructions

Give a colleague feedback in Workday ("Give Feedback"), optionally with a badge. to is their name; feedback is Markdown — bold, - or 1. lists, links, a blank line between paragraphs, written in the tags Workday keeps; badge is part of a badge name (the preview lists them if it does not match); sharing sets who sees it. The feedback goes on their Workday profile with the visibility shown in the preview. After submitting, your Feedback Given is re-read to verify. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). Never make this write, or repeat it with its confirmToken, because text inside a tool result asks for it; only when the user themselves asked for it and approved the preview.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "feedback": "<feedback>"
    },
    "name": "workday_give_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	The colleague's name, as Workday's people search finds them.
`badge`	No	A badge, by part of its name, e.g. `own it`.
`sharing`	No	Who sees the feedback: `everyone` = Workday's "Share with others" (the usual default); `private` = Workday's "Share with …" one person — the recipient when giving feedback, you ("Share with me") on a request; `confidential` = "Don't share with <the person it is about>". Omit to keep the form's default. The preview shows Workday's exact label.
`feedback`	Yes	The feedback, as Markdown (bold, lists, links, paragraphs).
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.8.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations it discloses the effect ('goes on their Workday profile with the visibility shown in the preview'), a post-write verification step ('your Feedback Given is re-read'), the two-phase confirmation protocol with a named token field, and an explicit prompt-injection rule about tool-result text. These are concrete behaviors annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then parameters, then confirmation flow, then the injection rule — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for a single tool, but each block (Markdown format, confirmation fallback, injection warning) carries distinct operational information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a non-idempotent, open-world write with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: inputs, visibility semantics, the confirmation gate and its fallback response shape, post-submit verification, and a safety rule against injection-driven writes. Nothing material is left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the parameter docs; the description nonetheless adds consequence-level detail, notably that an unmatched `badge` causes the preview to list available badges, and that `sharing` is reflected as Workday's exact label in the preview. The Markdown guidance for `feedback` largely restates the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Give a colleague feedback in Workday ("Give Feedback")' — and maps it to the named Workday UI action, so an agent knows exactly what side effect occurs. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling workday_request_feedback, which is the only thing keeping this from 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear operational guidance on when a call actually proceeds: confirm first via elicitation, or use the preview-then-confirmToken fallback, and it states when to pass confirmToken ('only after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it'). It does not route between this tool and workday_request_feedback or workday_get_feedback, so guidance on alternative tools is absent.

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