Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ohneben's Wafeq MCP

ohneben's Wafeq MCP

by ohneben
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

wafeq_payslips_pay_items_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific pay item from a payslip using its payslip ID and item ID. Get detailed pay item data directly from the Wafeq API for validation or review.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Pay Items · GET /payslips/{payslip_id}/pay-items/{id}/

Retrieve pay item

Endpoint for retrieving a single pay item.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "payslip_id": "<payslip_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_payslips_pay_items_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
payslip_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description's 'READ-ONLY' and 'GET' merely restate those flags and adds no further behavioral context such as return format, error cases, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the route and read-only marker, but 'Retrieve pay item' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single pay item' are redundant. It could be tightened to a single informative phrase.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only retrieve with two string parameters, the core operation is conveyed. However, without an output schema, parameter semantics, or guidance on locating pay item IDs, the description feels minimally adequate rather than complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not fill that gap. The path shows payslip_id and id as identifiers, but it does not explain their exact meaning, relationship, format, or how the agent should discover valid values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Retrieve pay item' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single pay item.' The exact path GET /payslips/{payslip_id}/pay-items/{id}/ plus 'single' distinguishes it from the list/create/update/destroy pay-item siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer it should call this when retrieving one pay item by payslip_id and id. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over wafeq_payslips_pay_items_list, nor mention any exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools