Quinyx MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Attest worked hours in Quinyx

quinyx_attest_worked_hours

Read-onlyIdempotent

Attest worked hours in the user's own Quinyx account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Quinyx step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Quinyx Cloud Browser. Quinyx's official API: Quinyx has a REST API (checked 22 Oct 2026), but no official MCP server, and the API leaves out the manager's daily work: it cannot approve requests, offer shifts, attest hours or publish a schedule.

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": "quinyx_attest_worked_hours"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the critical non-obvious trait: this tool returns guidance and 'opens nothing by itself', preventing the agent from assuming it performs the attestation. It also implies a prerequisite (an active Quinyx Cloud Browser session) without spelling out what happens if none exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the follow-up mechanics in the first two sentences. The closing API survey, including the 'checked 22 Oct 2026' date, is somewhat tangential justification rather than operational guidance, but it does explain why the browser route is required.

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 parameterless, non-mutating guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (step-by-step UI instructions), what it does not do, and the next tool family to use. Only the failure mode when no browser session is available is left unaddressed.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. No misleading parameter hints are introduced.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource (attest worked hours) scoped to the user's own Quinyx account, and immediately clarifies the actual output: step-by-step instructions with screens, buttons and fields. The one ambiguity is that it does not distinguish itself by name from the sibling cotlet_app_guide, which likely serves a similar advisory role.

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 a clear workflow: call this first to get the steps, then execute them with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Quinyx Cloud Browser, and it explicitly notes this tool opens nothing itself. The final sentence justifies why browser automation is needed (API gaps) but never states when a sibling like quinyx_approve_request or cotlet_app_guide would be the better choice.

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

All Quinyx MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?