getTechnicianRetrieve a technician's dispatch-ready profile by ID, including contact info, status, tier, skills, crew relations, and assigned vehicles.
Get a technician
Returns one technician's full profile: contact info, employment status, assignment tier, skills/qualifications, buddy (crew) relations and assigned vehicles — the dispatch-ready view of a field worker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Technician ID |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing the returned data ('full profile', 'dispatch-ready view'), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.
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 short and to the point, with a clear title and a list of returned fields. It front-loads the purpose. One could argue the title repeats the name, but overall it is efficient.
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 simple one-parameter input and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. It lists the key fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's output. However, it could mention potential error conditions like 'invalid ID'.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Technician ID'. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states 'Get a technician' and lists the specific fields returned ('contact info, employment status, assignment tier, skills/qualifications, buddy relations, assigned vehicles'). The verb is 'Get', resource is 'technician', and it distinguishes from siblings like listTechnicians (list) and updateTechnician (update).
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage for fetching a single technician's full profile, but does not mention alternatives or context where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.