mcp-hr-knowledge-evals

get_onboarding_milestones

Retrieve role-specific 30/60/90-day onboarding expectations and completion criteria by role and tenure checkpoint to assess employee progress.

Instructions

Get role-specific 30/60/90-day onboarding expectations and completion criteria.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "role": "<role>",
      "tenure_days": "<tenure_days>"
    },
    "name": "get_onboarding_milestones"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	Yes	Employee role or job title (e.g. "backend engineer")
`tenure_days`	Yes	Onboarding checkpoint: 30, 60, or 90 days

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a simple read-only lookup of static expectation content and states what is returned (expectations and completion criteria), but never confirms it is non-mutating, whether results vary by tenure beyond the enum, or how the two fields relate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scoping qualifier ('role-specific') and the checkpoint window appear before the returned content. Nothing is redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-required-parameter lookup with no output schema and no nested objects, the definition covers purpose and return content adequately. The remaining gap is behavioral: it does not state read-only/non-mutating nature or that data is static per role and checkpoint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with examples and an enum. The description's 'role-specific' and '30/60/90-day' phrasing reinforces the schema but adds no new syntax, format, or edge-case meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly scoped resource: role-specific 30/60/90-day onboarding expectations plus completion criteria. An agent can tell this apart from a coaching rubric or generic HR policy lookup, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools ('fetch_manager_coaching_rubric', 'query_hr_policy') as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'role-specific ... onboarding expectations', leaving the agent to infer the selection rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server