ohneben's Wafeq MCP

wafeq_payslips_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single payslip by ID from Wafeq to retrieve detailed payroll information for review or processing.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Payslips · GET /payslips/{id}/

Retrieve payslip

Endpoint for retrieving a single payslip.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_payslips_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the READ-ONLY label mostly repeats structured data. The description adds the GET endpoint pattern but no deeper behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, errors, or response behavior. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded with a useful READ-ONLY and endpoint label. There is minor redundancy between 'Retrieve payslip' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single payslip', but overall it is well-structured and not bloated.

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 one-parameter retrieve operation with safety annotations, the description is basically usable. However, it does not distinguish itself from wafeq_payslips_list or wafeq_payslips_download_retrieve, and with no output schema it leaves the response shape implicit. A bit more context would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the endpoint path /payslips/{id}/ adds meaning by showing that id is the path identifier of the payslip to retrieve. It still does not explain the id's format or where to find a valid id, but for a single self-evident required parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 states the verb 'Retrieve', the resource 'payslip', and the endpoint GET /payslips/{id}/, making clear it retrieves a single payslip. This distinguishes it from list, create, update, destroy, and download siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'retrieving a single payslip' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when one specific payslip is needed by ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intent is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Deploy Server