Retrieve a technician's complete details by providing their technician ID. If the ID is unknown, locate it via the technicians list first.
Retrieve one technician by its required ID. Use people_technicians_list to search when the technician ID is unknown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Technician 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, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds no additional behavioral detail such as not-found handling or response shape, but the output schema and annotations cover the main concerns. No contradiction with annotations.
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 the core action first and the routing guidance second. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
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-parameter read tool, the description plus annotations and output schema are sufficient. It tells the agent exactly what is retrieved, by what key, and where to go if the key is unknown.
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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is documented as 'Technician ID'. The description only says 'required ID', adding no meaning beyond the schema. 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 names a specific operation — retrieving one technician — and the required identifier. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling list tool by framing retrieval as ID-based lookup.
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 states the alternative people_technicians_list and gives the exact condition for choosing it: when the technician ID is unknown. This gives an agent a clear routing rule with no inference needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.