Search the employee directory by name, email, department, or job title to locate employee profiles and relevant contact information.
Search the employee directory by name, email, department, or job title
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query to match against employee name, email, department, or title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation and the scope is clear, but the description does not state whether results are returned as a list, how matches are ranked, whether matching is partial or exact, or any pagination/limit behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and searchable fields efficiently, with every word contributing value.
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 tool is simple with one well-documented parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description is adequate for invocation but does not explain return shape, result limits, or how it differs from nearby directory tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among siblings.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single query parameter, including the same searchable fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as wildcard support, case sensitivity, or matching behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('employee directory') plus the fields being searched (name, email, department, job title). It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get-employee or get-employee-directory.
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 description implies when to use the tool: when you need to find employees by name, email, department, or title. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling like get-employee or get-employee-directory 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.