Retrieve a single payroll timesheet code by its ID. Provide the known ID to get details; if the ID is unknown, use the list endpoint to find it.
Retrieve one timesheet code by its required ID. Use payroll_timesheet_codes_list to search when the ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Timesheet code ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+}v2.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds that it returns a single record by ID and points to the list tool when searching, but does not disclose not-found behavior or error semantics beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and requirement are front-loaded, and the alternative tool is given in a single follow-up sentence.
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 simple single-ID retrieval with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, when to use it, and when to use the sibling list tool, leaving no critical gap.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'id' is documented as 'Timesheet code ID'. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('timesheet code'), and the identifying condition ('by its required ID'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list tool by name, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.
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?
It explicitly says to use payroll_timesheet_codes_list when the ID is unknown, which is a clear when-to-use versus alternative directive. The phrase 'by its required ID' implies this tool is for when the ID is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.