Retrieves a payroll salary record by ID, returning line-by-line earnings and deductions, accounting accounts, totals, and payment status for payroll review.
Get a payroll salary record by ID (Holded API v2, scope accounting:payrolls.read). Returns line-by-line earnings and deductions, accounting accounts, totals and payment status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| salaryRecordId | Yes | Salary record ID (24-char hex) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the required OAuth scope (accounting:payrolls.read) and enumerates what the response contains (earnings/deductions lines, accounting accounts, totals, payment status). It omits failure behavior (not-found, cross-tenant access) and does not explicitly declare read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Get'.
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?
One tight sentence pair: identity and scope up front, return contents second. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the title.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by summarizing the return payload, and it also gives the auth scope. For a single-key read tool this is nearly complete; only error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.
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 single parameter is already documented as a 24-char hex ID. The description adds nothing further about the identifier — no format, no example, no note on where an ID comes from (e.g. list_salary_records) — so baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a payroll salary record by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_salary_records and get_salary_record_defaults by the 'by ID' single-record framing. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the split.
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?
Usage is only implied: fetch one record when you already hold its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when to prefer list_salary_records or get_salary_record_defaults instead, and no prerequisites beyond the scope string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.