Retrieve attendance records for a specific employee, optionally filtered by start and end dates.
One employee's attendance. Optionally scope to a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| start_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| employee_code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral hint that results can be scoped to a date range, but it does not disclose the return shape, pagination, or what an unscoped query returns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core subject comes first and the optional modifier second. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a crowded set of attendance sibling tools and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'attendance' contains, how it differs from attendance_range/daily/summary, or what an agent should expect when no date range is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% and the schema already documents the date format for start_date and end_date. The description adds that the dates form an optional range and that the target is a single employee, but it does not clarify pairing requirements, inclusivity, or constraints on employee_code beyond the schema pattern.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (one employee's attendance) and the optional date-range scoping, so an agent understands the basic purpose. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish this tool from sibling attendance tools, but it is not merely a tautology because it adds the date-range option.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like clokio_attendance_daily, clokio_attendance_range, or clokio_attendance_summary. The only usable context is the phrase 'One employee's attendance', which hints at scope but offers no exclusions or decision rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.