performance-mcp

by yc-lm

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

list_performance_evaluations

Retrieve your performance evaluations, filtered by period or status, with pagination and sorting.

Instructions

List the current user performance evaluations. Use list_periods first when a period ID is needed.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_performance_evaluations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number. Defaults to 1.
`limit`	No	Rows per page. Defaults to 10.
`sortBy`	No	Sort field. Defaults to finalTotal.
`status`	No	Optional evaluation status filter.
`periodId`	No	Assessment period ID.
`sortOrder`	No	Sort direction. Defaults to desc.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that it lists evaluations for the current user, which is a behavioral scope. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond the schema. Acceptable but could be more explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and a clear usage hint. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity and good schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention that all parameters are optional, but the schema implies that. No output schema means return values are not described, which is acceptable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the hint about period ID. The description does not elaborate on parameter behavior or constraints that are not already in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists performance evaluations for the current user, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_periods (which lists periods) and get_performance_evaluation_detail (which gets a single evaluation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use list_periods first when a period ID is needed.' This helps the agent understand the prerequisite. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools for other operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server