Fetch a worker's basic record by ID, returning name, contact, organization, points, streaks, and timestamps for plain lookup.
Ungated, plain read of one worker row: name, contact, org, points, streaks, timestamps. (tascan_get_worker_passport is the rich stats view; this is the boring lookup.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| worker_id | Yes | Worker ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Ungated' meaning no special access controls, and 'plain read' clarifying it returns basic fields rather than computed analytics. This goes beyond annotations by specifying the ungated nature and the limited scope of data.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and sibling differentiation with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most critical information: 'Ungated, plain read of one worker row'.
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?
Given the tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what fields it returns, and how it differs from a rich stats sibling. A small gap is that it doesn't specify what happens if the worker_id doesn't exist (e.g., error or null), but this is minor for a read 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 coverage is 100% (one required parameter worker_id with a description). The description does not add parameter-level detail, but with only one parameter and full coverage, the baseline is 3. It earns a 4 by naming the specific fields returned (name, contact, org, points, streaks, timestamps), which helps the agent understand the output shape without an output schema.
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 description clearly states this tool reads a single worker row and enumerates the fields returned (name, contact, org, points, streaks, timestamps). It also contrasts itself with tascan_get_worker_passport, which provides the 'rich stats view,' making the purpose distinct from a sibling tool.
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?
The description explicitly calls out that this tool is 'Ungated, plain read' and contrasts it with tascan_get_worker_passport ('the rich stats view; this is the boring lookup'), giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.