get_availabilityFind out if someone is available now, how many hours per week they can commit, and how soon they can start. Get clear availability details for planning.
Whether this person is available now, hours per week, and how soon they can start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond the annotation by specifying the actual information returned: availability now, hours per week, and how soon the person can start. Since there is no output schema, this content disclosure is the primary behavioral signal available.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It is slightly awkward grammatically ('Whether this person...'), but every part carries meaning and the key information is front-loaded.
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?
For a parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantic content well. It could be more explicit about the exact response fields or format, but nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning because there are no inputs to configure.
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 identifies the resource (the person's availability) and the specific information provided: current availability, hours per week, and start readiness. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieves', but the meaning is clear and it is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_profile or list_projects by topic.
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?
The intended use case is implied rather than explicit: an agent would infer to call this when it needs to know current availability, weekly hours, or start timing. However, the description does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as get_profile for general background.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.