Retrieve HR lifecycle events for employees, such as promotions, transfers, and leaves, with optional filtering by event type.
Get HR lifecycle events for an employee (promotions, transfers, leaves)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| event_type | No | Filter by type: promotion, transfer, leave, onboarding, offboarding | |
| employee_sys_id | Yes | Employee user sys_id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool retrieves lifecycle events, which is consistent with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, date ranges, or error handling. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
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, clear sentence that captures the tool's purpose and examples. It is concise without unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is effective.
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?
For a relatively simple read-only tool with good annotations and full schema documentation, the description is adequate. It explains the resource and provides event type examples. However, it lacks information about the return format, pagination, or any limitations. Given the absence of an output schema, some return expectations would be helpful. Overall, it is reasonably complete.
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?
All three parameters (employee_sys_id, event_type, limit) have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the action (Get) and the resource (HR lifecycle events for an employee) and lists example event types (promotions, transfers, leaves). It distinguishes this tool from generic get/list tools by specifying the HR lifecycle context.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools (e.g., get_hr_profile, list_hr_cases).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.