Retrieve a technician shift by its unique ID. If the ID is unknown, search the shifts list to find it first.
Retrieve one technician shift by its required ID. Use people_technician_shifts_list to search when the shift ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Technician shift 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 adds only the known-ID requirement and the list alternative, but no additional behavioral context such as error handling or response shape. This meets the minimum bar but does not go beyond it.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with zero filler. The core retrieval purpose is front-loaded, and the routing guidance to the list sibling is placed second, earning 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 single-parameter get-by-ID tool, the description, annotations, and output schema together cover everything needed to invoke it correctly. The known-ID vs. search guidance completes the context without missing details.
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 single 'id' parameter is already described as 'Technician shift ID'. The description's mention of 'required ID' adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema's required field, 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 action ('Retrieve one technician shift'), identifies the exact resource, and scopes it by ID. It also names the sibling list tool, making differentiation from people_technician_shifts_list immediate.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use this tool versus the alternative: use people_technician_shifts_get when the ID is known, and people_technician_shifts_list to search when the ID is unknown. This removes ambiguity about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.