Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Metrx MCP Server

Metrx MCP Server

by metrxbots
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Workforce Review

metrx_get_workforce_review
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a paged weekly workforce review of every AI agent, including job, cost, outcomes, scorecard state, and candidate decision with rationale.

Instructions

The weekly workforce review: every AI agent in the org as a line manager would read it (job, cost this window, outcomes, scorecard state, the candidate decision and why). org=demo reads the public Northwind sample and needs no key; org=me reads your own org and needs an API key with the 'read' scope. Paged by cursor. Numbers are the same the review page shows.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "metrx_get_workforce_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgNo'demo' (default) reads the public Northwind sample review and needs no key; 'me' reviews your own org and needs an API key with the 'read' scope.demo
limitNoAgents per page (default 25, max 100).
cursorNoNext page: the cursor the previous page returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that the description adds the read-scope auth requirement, cursor paging, and a useful provenance guarantee that the numbers match the review page. A 3 is warranted because the description noticeably restates the org/key semantics the schema already documents rather than adding further behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the review is, followed by access rules and paging. Minor redundancy with the schema on org modes and 'Paged by cursor' costs it a point, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by listing the per-agent content of the review. Auth and paging are covered too; the only gap is that page-size behavior (limit) is left entirely to the schema.

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 all three parameters are already documented in structured data. The description's org=demo/org=me explanation duplicates the schema text almost verbatim and it never mentions limit, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: the weekly workforce review covering every AI agent in the org, and enumerates the per-agent fields returned (job, cost this window, outcomes, scorecard state, candidate decision and why). It is clearly distinct from single-agent siblings like metrx_get_agent_detail, but it never names an alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete operating context: org=demo is the keyless public sample, org=me requires an API key with 'read' scope, and results are paged by cursor. It does not say when to prefer this over related tools such as the scorecard or headline reports, so there are no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools