Fetches the list of meetings scheduled for an employee by employee ID, so HR workflows can review or coordinate their calendar.
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 burden. It implies a read-only lookup but discloses nothing about permissions, whether only upcoming meetings are returned, ordering, or pagination; it also fails to say what happens for an unknown employee_id.
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?
The purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, but the ':param'/':return' docstring boilerplate duplicates structured data the agent already receives. It is compact but not optimized for tool selection.
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 values need not be explained, and the operation is a simple single-parameter read. Still, nothing addresses scoping (time window, active vs. past meetings) or error behavior, leaving gaps for a list tool.
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 description coverage is 0% and the tool takes one parameter. The ':param employee_id: Employee ID' line merely restates the schema title 'Employee Id', adding no format, source, or constraint information.
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?
The first sentence gives a specific verb (get) and resource (list of meetings) scoped to an employee, which is clear enough to act on. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tools that touch the same domain (schedule_meeting, cancel_meeting), so it stops 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus schedule_meeting, cancel_meeting, or any other sibling, and no preconditions or exclusions. 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.