woffu-manager

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action (cancel, clock in, edit, get availability, get balance, list holidays, list pending, list requests, request) with no overlap. An agent can easily differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., cancel_time_off_request, list_holidays), making them predictable and easy to remember.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools is a well-scoped set for a time-off and attendance manager, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core CRUD for time-off requests, clock-in for pending days, and support data (holidays, balances). Minor gaps exist: no ability to view past clocked days or edit clock-in entries, but the main workflows are supported.
Average 4.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 4 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses read-only behavior, date range, and the meaning of the 'weekend: true' field. However, it does not detail error handling or pagination.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance and field explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description covers return semantics (holidays, weekend field) and usage context. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, it provides sufficient completeness.
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% for the single optional 'from' parameter, including pattern and description. The description adds context about default (today) but does not significantly extend semantic meaning beyond 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists upcoming public holidays on the user's work calendar, specifying a time range of roughly a year out. It distinguishes from sibling tools like request_time_off by focusing on read-only holiday viewing.
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 explains when to use: for planning time off, noting that holidays cost no days off and adjacent weekends create long weekends. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Declares read-only, lists exclusions, and explains lockedDays behavior. Without annotations, this provides sufficient transparency about what the tool does and does not modify. Lacks detail on output structure.
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?
Four sentences, each with distinct value: purpose, exclusions, read-only, lockedDays explanation, and usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output content, exclusions, edge cases, and usage instruction. No gaps.
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?
The input schema fully documents the month parameter (format, default). 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 it lists workdays with no hours logged, provides exact time ranges, and lists exclusions (weekends, holidays, absences, etc.), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like clock_in_days.
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?
Explicitly advises showing ranges to user before clocking in, and states lockedDays cannot be fixed via this tool, implying reporting. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tool (e.g., clock_in_days).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description correctly calls out that this tool is read-only ('never files a request'). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or date range behavior, but the core behavioral trait (non-destructive) is well communicated.
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 that front-load the purpose and quickly cover the key details (status options and read-only nature). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what fields are returned besides status. It also lacks mention of pagination or limits, which would be helpful for a list operation. With only one parameter, the gaps are moderate.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter with an enum and description. The description adds the practical tip 'Omit `status` to get all of them,' which provides semantic value beyond the schema by clarifying default behavior.
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 verb ('list') and the resource ('time-off requests') along with the specific fields returned (statuses like pending, approved, denied). It distinguishes from sibling tools like request_time_off and cancel_time_off_request by emphasizing it is a read-only listing.
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 explains how to filter by status and that omitting status returns all requests. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives for specific scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a write operation, each day is re-validated before writing, and already-clocked days are rejected. However, it does not mention potential side effects like whether the action is reversible or any rate limits.
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?
The description is a single paragraph but well-structured and informative. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by grouping related information.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains input and behavior. It mentions rejection of already-clocked days, which implies some response handling. However, it does not describe the success response or potential error messages.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds significant value: explains that dates should come from list_pending_days, that ranges override the schedule for all dates in the call, and that the default uses the theoretical schedule from Woffu.
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 uses specific verb 'Clocks' and identifies the resource 'days in Woffu'. It clearly states it writes to the user's official timesheet, and the tool is distinct from siblings which deal with time-off and availability.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to show the user dates and time ranges from list_pending_days and get confirmation before calling. Provides clear guidance on when to use the optional ranges parameter and cautions that it overrides all dates, so group dates that share a schedule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that it WRITES to Woffu, deletes outright, returns balance, and is irreversible ('cannot be undone'). It does not specify permissions or state restrictions beyond 'pending', but covers major behavioral traits.
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?
Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, effect, and usage warning. No unnecessary words; well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it works, irreversible nature, and guidance on using requestId from a sibling tool. Complete for effective selection and invocation.
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% with description for requestId. The tool description adds that requestId comes from list_time_off_requests, providing helpful source context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 plus extra value.
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 verb 'Withdraws' and the resource 'time-off request'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_time_off_request and request_time_off by being a cancellation action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that cancellation cannot be undone and instructs to confirm with the user which request by type and dates. It also references list_time_off_requests for obtaining the requestId, providing clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior. Discloses that weekends and holidays are excluded from working days, half-day counts as 0.5, people are returned least-available first, pending days are reported separately and not subtracted, and the read-only nature.
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?
Description is well-structured and uses bullet-like formatting. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise by removing redundant phrases like 'the usual question'.
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?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains all output fields (workingDays, daysOff, pendingDaysOff, availableDays, availability, totals, absences). With 4 optional parameters and no required ones, the coverage is complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value: explains defaults for 'from' (today) and 'to' (30 days after from), clarifies that omitting 'team' returns the user's own team, and 'person' narrows to matching names. This goes beyond 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?
The description clearly states it is for capacity planning, listing per-person availability metrics (available days, working days, days off, pending days, availability fraction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_time_off_requests or get_time_off_balance by aggregating over a date range with different output fields.
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?
Explicitly says 'Built for capacity planning: a PO sizing a sprint needs to know who is away before committing to a load.' It explains that pending days are not subtracted from available days. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention sibling alternatives by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses read-only nature, explains the per-bucket structure (units, expiresOn, daysUntilExpiry), warns about losing time, and confirms the list order. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
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 concise (~80 words), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence serves a purpose: identifying buckets, warning about unit mixing, explaining expiration, and noting read-only nature.
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?
Given no output schema and no parameters, the description fully covers what the tool returns, how to use the data (spend soonest-expiring), and important caveats (different units). It leaves no obvious gaps.
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?
There are no parameters (schema coverage 100%, 0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what each bucket contains and how to interpret the results, enhancing the schema's implicit emptiness.
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 that the tool returns remaining time off per bucket (holidays, paid leave, etc.), with specific verb 'get' and resource 'time off balance'. It is distinct from sibling tools like request_time_off or cancel_time_off_request.
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 provides explicit guidance: never add buckets together due to different units, and suggests spending the soonest-expiring bucket first. It implies usage for checking leave balances, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses write nature, balance/calendar validation, refusal reasons, day count logic, and unsupported types. No contradictions.
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?
Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant. No wasted words.
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 6 params, 100% coverage, no output schema, description explains behavior, constraints, validation, unsupported types, and pre-call user confirmation. Very thorough for a write tool.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning: differentiation between whole-day and hourly types, type must match get_time_off_balance, to defaults to from, comment personal data caution. Adds clear usage rules beyond 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?
Clearly states it files a time-off request, WRITES to the user's record, and is seen by manager. Distinguishes from siblings by listing unsupported types (half-day, document requiring).
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 clear context for when to use (filing time-off) and what types are supported. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or direct alternatives like 'use edit_time_off_request to modify', but context is sufficient for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses: writes to Woffu, re-validates against Woffu, can refuse weekends/holidays/overdraw, and only pass changed fields (others keep current value).
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?
Concise, front-loaded with main action, then details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers all necessary context: two request modes, re-validation, and constraint on leave type. Sufficient for an edit operation.
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%, but description adds value: explains whole-day vs hourly request modes, that from/to are for whole-day, startTime/endTime for hourly, and requestId comes from list_time_off_requests. Only minor improvement needed.
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?
Description clearly states it edits an existing time-off request, changing dates/times/comment. Distinguishes from siblings like cancel_time_off_request and request_time_off.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (modify existing request) and when not (can't change leave type; cancel and file new). Mentions prerequisite (requestId from list_time_off_requests) and instructs to confirm with user before calling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![woffu-adapter-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alechagonzalo/woffu-adapter-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alechagonzalo/woffu-adapter-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![woffu-adapter-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alechagonzalo/woffu-adapter-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/alechagonzalo/woffu-adapter-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alechagonzalo/woffu-adapter-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server