Retrieve all scheduled meetings for a specific employee using their employee ID, so HR workflows can review upcoming appointments and manage scheduling.
Get the list of meetings scheduled for an employee.
:param employee_id: Employee ID
:return: List of meetings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| employee_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination behavior, no ordering, no time-window scope, no permission requirements. Only the bare fact that a list is returned is conveyed.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Sphinx-style ':param'/':return' lines are redundant boilerplate given the input and output schemas, so the bytes spent add little.
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?
An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, but for a read tool with zero annotation coverage the description should still clarify scope (time range, ownership, ordering). Those gaps leave the agent guessing about what the list actually contains.
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?
With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but ':param employee_id: Employee ID' merely restates the schema field name. No format, source, or constraints for the ID are given.
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: retrieving the list of meetings for an employee. It is unambiguous on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from related siblings such as schedule_meeting or cancel_meeting, which an agent must still separate by name alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings, no preconditions, and no indication of what the result covers (past vs. upcoming, recurring instances). Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.