Retrieve employee access requests to review and manage approvals. Filter by status, package, or requester to identify pending permissions.
List employee access requests. Requires access:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | pending | |
| package_key | No | ||
| requester_subject | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the auth requirement 'Requires access:read,' which is useful context not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering semantics, or default status, leaving the description thin beyond what annotations provide.
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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is so sparse that it omits crucial contextual information, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns a middling score for being brief but at the cost of usefulness.
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 the tool's complexity (4 filter parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description should still explain the scope (admin vs. user-level), the filtering behavior, and the meaning of parameters. None of this is provided. The description is incomplete for an admin list tool, especially compared to sibling tools that likely have richer descriptions.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the four parameters (limit, status, package_key, requester_subject). The description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List employee access requests.' This is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool gateway_access_request_list (non-admin), so an agent might not know which to choose without further investigation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_access_request_list or other admin tools. The only hint is the 'admin' prefix in the tool name, but the description does not explicitly state the difference or mention any prerequisites beyond the auth requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.