Get employee details by ID. If the ID is unknown, search with the employees list tool first.
Retrieve one employee by its required ID. Use people_employees_list to search when the ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Employee 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cardinality ('one employee') and dependency on ID, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as error handling or existence semantics. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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 is front-loaded, and the sibling guidance is placed exactly where it is useful. Every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only fetch with a comprehensive annotation set and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to use the alternative. Nothing essential is missing.
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% and the only parameter, id, is already documented as 'Employee ID'. The description repeats that the ID is required but adds no new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the operation: retrieve one employee by its required ID. It names the resource (employee), the action (retrieve), and the key constraint (ID required), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling people_employees_list without needing to inspect the schema.
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 tells the agent when to use the sibling people_employees_list instead: when the ID is unknown. This is direct, actionable routing guidance that prevents misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.