Fetches a single employee from Holded using a 24-character employee ID, enabling lookup of specific staff details for invoicing and contact workflows.
Get a single employee by ID (Holded API v2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| employeeId | Yes | Employee ID (24-char hex ObjectId) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and gives an API version, but says nothing about behavior on missing/invalid IDs, permissions/scopes, or rate limits.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the key scope ('single employee') first. The '(Holded API v2)' parenthetical is mildly dispensable but not costly.
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 one-parameter, schema-complete lookup with no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It leaves open what is returned and how not-found cases behave, which an agent would want to know before calling.
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 schema already specifies employeeId as a 24-char hex ObjectId; the description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Get a single employee by ID'. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from list_employees, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus list_employees or get_employee_contract, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an ID obtained from list_employees). Usage is only inferable from 'by ID'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.