list_employeesRetrieve the list of active employees for your company, with an optional flag to include terminated or on-leave staff for a full headcount view.
List active employees for the company. Use when the user asks about their employees, staff, team members, or headcount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_inactive | No | Include terminated/on_leave employees (default false) |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that only active employees are returned by default, which is useful. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned, but for a simple list tool with strong annotations this is acceptable.
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 sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a natural second sentence. Every word earns its place.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the result is a list of employee records, but the tool name and title already convey that. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100%, so the single parameter include_inactive is fully documented in the schema. The description adds the default behavior (active only) which complements the parameter, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('List active employees for the company') and clarifies the default scope (active only). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like deel_get_people, which is about Deel contractor/employee data, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'when the user asks about their employees, staff, team members, or headcount.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the usage context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.