Retrieve direct reports for any manager from the employee directory. Filter by supervisor ID or department to view team members and reporting structure.
Get team members for a specific supervisor/manager from the employee directory
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| department | No | Filter by department name | |
| supervisorId | No | Filter by supervisor employee ID (numeric) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what is returned (e.g., list of employees), how the two optional filters combine, behavior when no filters are provided, or any pagination/sorting details.
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?
One compact sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It leaves ambiguity about whether 'team members' means direct reports or a wider hierarchy, how filters interact, and what happens when no parameters are supplied (both are optional).
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description maps 'supervisor/manager' to the supervisorId parameter implicitly, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.
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 specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('team members'), and a scoping context ('for a specific supervisor/manager from the employee directory'). It clearly differentiates from get-employee-directory by focusing on a supervisor's team, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 siblings like get-employee-directory or find-employee. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or decision criteria beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.