Retrieve employees from Holded using cursor-based pagination. Pass the prior response's nextCursor to fetch the next page and set a limit to control page size.
List employees (Holded API v2, section Equipo y RRHH). Cursor-paginated: pass the previous response nextCursor as cursor to fetch the next page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items per page | |
| cursor | No | Cursor from a previous response nextCursor |
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 behavioral burden; it does disclose the cursor-pagination contract, which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, default page size, or whether the list is workspace-scoped.
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 tight sentences with the resource identity first and the pagination contract second; no filler and nothing repeated.
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 two-optional-param read-only listing with no output schema, the pagination behavior is the main thing an agent needs and it is covered. Only the shape of returned employee records is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 both parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description slightly reinforces cursor semantics ('pass the previous response nextCursor'), but adds no format, unit, or default details beyond the schema.
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 ('List employees') and scopes it to the Holded API v2 'Equipo y RRHH' section. The 'List' prefix clearly separates it from get_employee, create_employee, update_employee and delete_employee in the sibling set, though it never names those alternatives 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?
Explains how to paginate (pass `nextCursor` as `cursor`) but gives no guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus get_employee for a single record or list_employee_times for related data. Usage is implied by the verb only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.