edhec-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Prepare an absence report

aurion_absence_prepare

Read-only

Validates an absence report and returns the exact text and proof files to send to EDHEC HUB Front Office, plus a 10-minute confirmation ID, without sending anything.

Instructions

Validates an absence report and returns the exact text and files that would be sent to the EDHEC HUB Front Office, plus a confirmationId (valid 10 minutes). Nothing is sent. Use ONLY the reason and proof files the user gave you, in their words. Never invent, embellish or change a reason, never declare an assessment the user did not mention, and never create, edit or fake a document. Proofs: pdf, jpg, jpeg or png, in English or French, 1 or 2 files. If several assessments were missed, prepare one report per assessment.

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>",
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "aurion_absence_prepare"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	Yes	End of the absence, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM (local time)
`files`	Yes	Absolute paths to the proof files
`start`	Yes	Start of the absence, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM (local time)
`reason`	Yes	The user's own reason, unchanged
`assessment`	No	Only if an assessment really was scheduled during the absence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that while adding real context the annotations cannot express: a confirmationId with a 10-minute validity window and the guarantee that nothing leaves the system. Missing is any mention of what happens if the confirmation expires or whether the underlying data is cached between prepare and submit.

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 purpose and side-effect status before the constraints, and every clause carries an actionable rule rather than filler. It is dense and slightly long, but no sentence is padding; the only mild redundancy is the 1-2 file count, which the schema's minItems/maxItems already enforces.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing returns and does so concretely: the exact text, the files, and a time-boxed confirmationId. For a five-parameter preparation tool with a nested assessment object, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and understand what comes back.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by constraining file proofs to pdf/jpg/jpeg/png, English or French, and 1-2 files, which the schema does not enumerate. It also reinforces the 'unchanged, user's own words' semantics of the reason field rather than merely restating it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Validates an absence report') and immediately states the return payload: the exact text and files that would be sent to the EDHEC HUB Front Office plus a confirmationId. The sentence 'Nothing is sent' cleanly separates it from the sibling submit tool, so an agent can distinguish it from aurion_absence_submit or aurion_absence_check 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?

Usage is clearly scoped: draft-and-preview semantics ('Nothing is sent'), a rule to use only the user's own reason and proof files, and a routing rule for the multi-assessment case ('prepare one report per assessment'). It never explicitly names aurion_absence_submit as the follow-up step, so the alternative is implied rather than stated.

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