w2w-mcp

w2w_get_timeoff

Retrieve approved time off from When2Work for a specified date range. Automatically handles pagination for ranges exceeding 31 days.

Instructions

Get approved time off from When2Work for a date range. Supports automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days.

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_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "w2w_get_timeoff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end_date`	Yes	End date in mm/dd/yyyy format (e.g., 01/31/2024)
`start_date`	Yes	Start date in mm/dd/yyyy format (e.g., 01/15/2024)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and provides useful behavior: 'approved time off' implies filtering, and 'automatic pagination for ranges over 31 days' discloses pagination behavior. It doesn't cover error handling or exact output structure, but the key traits are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place: the first states purpose, the second adds a critical behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, scope, and pagination. However, it doesn't briefly mention the return format or fields, which would be slightly more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described with format examples (mm/dd/yyyy). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), resource ('approved time off'), and source ('When2Work'), with a scope ('for a date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by the specific resource (time off vs employees, positions, etc.).

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?

The description gives clear context for use (date range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools are distinct by resource, making the intended use apparent from context, so it earns a 4.

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

Deploy Server