Retrieves signed approval memos for an employee, optionally filtered by city and the date the memo must cover, so you can verify travel claim approval.
Find approval memos for an employee, optionally filtered by city and a date they must cover. Only memos with signed=true count as approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| date | No | ||
| employee_id | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only memos with signed=true count as approval, but it does not state read-only behavior, permission requirements, missing-result behavior, or matching rules.
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 two tight sentences with no wasted wording. The core purpose and the signed=true approval criterion are front-loaded and easy to scan.
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?
The description is reasonably complete for a simple lookup tool and does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. Still, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the missing date format and matching semantics leave meaningful gaps for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps all three parameters conceptually: employee_id identifies the employee, city is an optional filter, and date means the memo must cover that date; however, it gives no date format, city matching rules, or employee ID format.
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 the specific verb and resource: find approval memos for an employee. It also adds the important signed=true criterion, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from approval-related siblings such as request_approval.
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?
Usage is implied by the first sentence: use this to retrieve approval memos for an employee, optionally narrowed by city and date. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.