get_payroll_summaryRetrieve year-to-date payroll figures, last payroll run date, and next payment due to monitor payroll costs and salary spend.
Get year-to-date payroll figures, last run date, and next payment due. Use when user asks about payroll costs, total salary spend, or when the next payroll run is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tax_year | No | Tax year (e.g. "2025-26"). Defaults to current tax year. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what data the summary includes but no deeper behavioral context like return formatting, data source, or edge cases. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two concise sentences: the first leads with the operation and result contents, the second states when to use it. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 read-only tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description names the key returned information and gives clear invocation triggers. It could mention how tax_year affects the summary, but the schema already covers that, so the definition is nearly 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?
The schema covers 100% of parameter documentation, including an example and the default behavior for tax_year. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a concrete resource with enumerated contents: year-to-date payroll figures, last run date, and next payment due. This clearly differentiates it from finance siblings like get_vat_summary or get_profit_and_loss.
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 'Use when' clause gives explicit user intents: payroll costs, total salary spend, or next payroll run. This is clear context, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.