Conecto

Adjust a leave balance

hr_adjust_leave

Add days to, or take days off, one person's balance of a tracked leave type in one leave year, with the reason: what they had already used or carried over when you started keeping their leave here, a day in lieu, a correction. Conecto counts from the leave year a person was added, so earlier history comes in this way. Returns the new balance. Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "person": "<person>",
      "leave_type": "<leave_type>",
      "days": "<days>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "hr_adjust_leave"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	Yes	Positive adds, negative takes off, in half days, e.g. -12 or 1.5.
`year`	No	A leave year, named by the year it starts in. Default: the current one.
`person`	Yes	The person_id, or their work email.
`reason`	Yes
`leave_type`	Yes	A leave type by name, e.g. "Vacation".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=false; the description adds cost ($0.01 per call, free on failure) and the new-balance return, both genuinely useful. It does not say whether a negative resulting balance is allowed or what permissions the caller needs, which for a balance mutation would be worth stating.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then reasons, then cost and return. The middle sentence about Conecto counting from the year a person was added is slightly convoluted but carries important model knowledge, so it earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, explicitly saying 'Returns the new balance' is the right compensation, and cost/failure behavior is disclosed. Remaining unknowns (permission requirements, behavior when the adjustment drives a balance negative) keep it from complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so days/year/person/leave_type are largely covered structurally. The description compensates for the undocumented `reason` field by enumerating what it is for (opening balance, day in lieu, correction) and explains why an earlier-year `year` matters ('Conecto counts from the leave year a person was added'), adding real meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Add days to, or take days off, one person's balance of a tracked leave type in one leave year.' The scoping (single person, single leave type, single year) makes it distinguishable from the request/decide leave siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggering scenarios — pre-existing used/carried-over history, day in lieu, corrections — which is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to pick this over hr_request_leave. It stops short of explicit exclusions such as 'do not use for new leave requests' or prerequisites like required role.

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

All Conecto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?