Retrieve a team member's performance metrics—assigned contacts, deal totals/wins/value, task counts, and last activity—by user ID.
Get a team member's performance stats — contacts assigned, deals (total/won/value), tasks (total/completed/pending), and last activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read, and the enumerated metrics tell the agent roughly what comes back. However, it never states the time window for 'performance stats' (all-time vs. period), whether it requires admin scope, or what happens for a user with no activity — a real gap for a reporting call.
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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the returned metric groups in a compact parenthetical. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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?
With no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields usefully stands in for a return description. But for a stats/reporting tool the omission of the measurement period and any permission requirement leaves an agent unable to predict the result set accurately.
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?
Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('User UUID'), so the schema fully documents the input and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing param-specific but nothing is missing.
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 team member's performance stats') and enumerates the metric families returned, which clearly separates it from conduyt_get_user or conduyt_list_users. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to prefer this over the siblings conduyt_agent_performance_report, conduyt_get_user, or conduyt_call_performance_report, which overlap heavily in subject matter. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.