Onplana

record_time_off

Record time off (vacation, sickness, a public holiday, training and so on) for a date range, so the capacity planner takes those working hours out. With no userId the leave is the caller's own; recording someone else's needs org-wide project access (a manager). When the workspace requires approval for time off, a non-manager's entry is PENDING and the approvers are notified; otherwise, and always for a manager, it is APPROVED at once. An entry that overlaps existing pending or approved leave for the same person is refused. When an approved entry lands on tasks with little float, the people running those projects are told.

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": {
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "record_time_off"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional note, up to 500 characters.
`type`	No	Default VACATION.
`hours`	No	Hours off per working day, for a partial day (up to 24). Omit for whole days.
`userId`	No	Whose leave. Omit for your own.
`endDate`	Yes	Last day off, YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive. The same as startDate for one day.
`startDate`	Yes	First day off, YYYY-MM-DD.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: explains the PENDING vs APPROVED policy depending on workspace approval settings and manager status, that approvers and at-risk project leads are notified, and that overlapping leave is refused. This is exactly the mutation semantics an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose then permissions, then approval behavior, then conflict/notification rules. Dense but each sentence carries operational information; no filler.

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?

Covers permissions, approval outcome, conflict handling, and side effects for a non-idempotent write tool with no output schema. Missing only what the call returns (e.g. the created entry and its status), which an agent might want to confirm success.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning for userId (omit = caller's own; another person requires manager-level access) and frames the date range in terms of capacity removal. Other params (type, hours, note) are left to 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 and resource ('Record time off ... for a date range') plus the downstream effect on the capacity planner. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling decide_time_off (approval) and create_timesheet_entry (hours logging).

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 conditions: omit userId for your own leave, supply it for someone else's (requires org-wide project access), and entries overlapping existing pending/approved leave are refused. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (e.g. decide_time_off for approvals), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Onplana 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.