Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SuccessFactors MCP Server

SuccessFactors MCP Server

by david-rodrig
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

get_manager_hr

Retrieve manager and/or HR information for an employee using user ID, employee ID, or email. Find reporting lines and HR contacts directly from SuccessFactors.

Instructions

Retrieve manager and/or HR information for a specific user in SuccessFactors.

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "get_manager_hr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
getHRNoWhether to retrieve HR information (default: true)
userIdYesUser ID (USERID), Employee ID (EMPID), or Email address to query
getManagerNoWhether to retrieve manager information (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose edge cases like what happens when both getHR and getManager are false, response format, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and scope immediately and efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters well, but the description alone doesn't fully equip an agent to select it with confidence. It lacks usage routing and details about what the returned 'manager and/or HR information' contains, especially since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('manager and/or HR information') for a specific user in SuccessFactors. It is clear and distinct from sibling names like update_manager_hr, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_complete_employee_data or get_user_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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention, for example, that get_complete_employee_data or get_user_data might be more appropriate for broader data needs, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools