Tripletex MCP Server

approve_timesheet_week

Approve employee timesheets for a specific week in Tripletex to finalize time tracking and enable payroll processing.

Instructions

Approve a timesheet week.

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": "approve_timesheet_week"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Timesheet week ID
`employeeId`	No	Employee ID
`weekYear`	No	ISO week-year (e.g. '2026-07')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. 'Approve' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether approval is reversible, what happens after approval (e.g., notifications, status changes), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after approval, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity implied by three parameters and the lack of structured safety information, more context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, providing no additional context about parameter relationships, dependencies, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Approve') and resource ('a timesheet week'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious alternatives like 'reject' or 'complete' operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve_timesheet_month' beyond the resource scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., timesheet must be submitted), conditions for approval, or when to choose 'approve_timesheet_week' over 'complete_timesheet_week' or 'approve_timesheet_month' from the sibling list.

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