Chato — Control de asistencia por WhatsApp

Historial de un empleado

historial_de_empleado

Read-only

Los registros de una persona en un rango: cada día con hora y sitio de entrada y de salida, retardos, faltas y los intentos fuera de sitio con la distancia. Úsala para revisar a alguien en concreto ("¿cómo ha estado llegando Karla este mes?", "¿María registró el martes?"). Attendance history of one employee.

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": {
      "empleado": "<empleado>"
    },
    "name": "historial_de_empleado"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`desde`	No	Inicio del rango, AAAA-MM-DD. Por defecto, los 30 días que terminan en "hasta" (contando ese día).
`hasta`	No	Fin del rango, AAAA-MM-DD. Por defecto hoy.
`empresa`	No	Nombre de la empresa. Solo hace falta cuando el usuario tiene varias empresas en Chato.
`empleado`	Yes	Nombre o código de la persona.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered, but the description goes further by specifying the shape of the returned data (day-by-day entries, lateness, absences, off-site attempts with distance) — valuable since there is no output schema. It does not mention volume limits or pagination for long ranges, a minor gap.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what the records contain, then when to use it, with the English one-liner trailing as a gloss. Dense but every clause carries information; the example questions earn their place as usage cues.

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?

For a 4-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, use case, and the substance of the return values. Only edge details — behavior on ambiguous employee names, large ranges, or missing records for a day — are left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter's meaning and the default 30-day window already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, matching, or disambiguation detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (attendance records for one person) and enumerates the exact content returned: per-day entry/exit time and site, tardiness, absences, and off-site attempts with distance. This distinguishes it clearly from day-level or registration-oriented siblings without needing their schemas.

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?

"Úsala para revisar a alguien en concreto" plus two concrete example questions makes the intended scenario unambiguous, and the phrase "de una persona" implicitly excludes whole-workforce queries. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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

All Chato — Control de asistencia por WhatsApp 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?