Retrieve BambooHR field metadata to view available fields. Optionally filter by type: list, time_off_type, time_off_policy.
Get BambooHR field metadata. Optionally filter by type: list, time_off_type, time_off_policy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Optional field type filter: list, time_off_type, time_off_policy |
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 behavioral burden. It conveys read-only intent through the verb 'Get' and shows the optional filtering behavior, but it does not mention permissions, the response shape, or what happens when the type filter is omitted. This is adequate for a simple metadata query but leaves some gaps.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the optional filter detail is presented compactly.
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 tool with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what metadata is retrieved and what filters are available. It does not describe the return structure, but that is less critical for a simple metadata lookup. Overall this is largely complete given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema description already fully documents the 'type' parameter and its allowed values. The tool description repeats those values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get BambooHR field metadata' and identifies an optional type filter. It is distinct from employee- and report-related siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 'discover-fields' or 'discover-datasets', so it misses the top score.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover-fields' or 'discover-datasets'. The description explains what the tool does but not when to prefer it or what conditions would make another tool the better choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.