attendance-engine

by arifur9993

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

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 operation (rounding, auditing, diagnosing, evaluating, generating, listing, resolving single day, resolving period) with clear and non-overlapping purposes. Even similar tools like audit_period_compliance and evaluate_break_compliance are differentiated by scope (period vs single day, comprehensive audit vs specific break analysis).
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., apply_rounding, diagnose_punches, list_rule_packs). There is no mixing of conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/5
The 8 tools cover the core workflows of an attendance engine (punch triage, day/period resolution, compliance, rounding, roster generation, rule pack listing) without being excessive. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers most essential operations: raw punch diagnosis, day/period resolution, compliance audits, rounding, roster generation, and rule pack listing. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a tool to apply rounding to a period or to modify rule packs, but the set is functional for typical use cases.
Average 3.9/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
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

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns and references legal codes, but does not state whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has performance implications. The mention of specific case law (Donohue v. AMN) adds context, but overall transparency is moderate.
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, consisting of three sentences that front-load the main purpose and include version and legal references. Every sentence contributes essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested inputs, no output schema), the description provides a useful overview of returned items but lacks details on output structure or behavior with invalid inputs. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 67%. The description does not explain parameters in detail, but the schema itself provides decent coverage for 'input' and 'jurisdiction'. The description adds value by noting 'waiver issues' in the output, implying the waivers parameter's role. However, it does not compensate fully for the undocumented 'waivers' parameter.
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 analyzes meal and rest period compliance for a duty day under a specific jurisdiction rule pack (California). It lists specific return items (per-meal/rest analysis, premium hours, waiver issues, presumption risk), distinguishing it from siblings like audit_period_compliance or resolve_day.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It mentions that v0.1 only supports California, but lacks instructions on alternatives for other jurisdictions or when not to use it.
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, but the description details what the tool returns (status, minutes, flags, segments), giving good insight into its behavior. However, it doesn't mention side effects or statelessness.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and outputs, though it could be broken into two for readability.
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?
No output schema and no annotations; the description gives a good overview but lacks depth on input parameters, making it moderately complete for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 14%, but the description provides no additional meaning for the 7 parameters beyond mentioning 'raw clock punches and a shift definition.' It fails to explain policy, leave, etc.
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 resolves a single duty day from punches and a shift definition, listing specific outputs. It distinguishes from sibling like resolve_period (period vs day).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., resolve_period, diagnose_punches) or when not to use it. The description only states what it does.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool returns per-day DayResult entries and optionally a PeriodSummary with attendance rate and flag counts, which gives basic behavioral insight. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or error handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output structure. Every sentence adds essential information. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (nested input schema for days) and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and output but lacks context on return value details, edge cases, or practical constraints. It is minimally 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?
Parameter descriptions in the schema already cover 100% of parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the optional nature of the summary parameter. Therefore, rating is baseline 3.
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 resolves a sequence of duty days, specifying possible timeframes (week, pay period, month) and output structure (per-day entries, optional aggregated summary). This specificity distinguishes it from siblings like resolve_day and audit_period_compliance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for a period of multiple days versus resolve_day for a single day, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. No 'when not to use' information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains that the tool keeps both rounded and exact-minute views, which is helpful. But it does not mention side effects, state changes, authorization needs, or output format, leaving gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and includes a concrete use case. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the tool's complex nested parameters and no output schema, the description is brief. It explains the core function but omits details about the output structure, how the rounding unit/mode apply, and how it integrates with sibling resolve tools. It is adequate for a domain expert but not fully self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 top-level parameters with no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the agent must infer meaning solely from the property names and nested schema, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 produces a rounded view of worked and overtime minutes while preserving exact-minute results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like resolve_day by focusing on rounding, and it specifies a domain context (California-style rounding pattern).
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 a specific use case ('California-style... pattern') and implies when to use it (after resolution, for rounding). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with siblings like audit_period_compliance or resolve_period, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes output but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond listing (no annotations provided). Since it's a simple parameterless list, it is adequate but could mention any restrictions or prerequisites.
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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, domain, and output details with no 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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and returns. Could note the absence of filters, but the empty schema already implies that.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value by detailing what is returned (id, label, citation, full rules), compensating for lack of output 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 the tool lists bundled jurisdiction rule packs for meal/rest compliance, and describes the return fields (id, label, citation, rules). Distinct from siblings which deal with other compliance functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied that this is a read-only listing for rule packs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool resolves attendance and evaluates compliance, lists output elements (premium hours, days at risk, etc.), and notes jurisdiction limitations. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but the output focus suggests a read operation. The description is transparent enough for effective use.
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 at four sentences, each serving a clear purpose. It starts with the main action, then details the process and output, and ends with use cases. No extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded.
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 the complexity of the tool (nested inputs, no output schema), the description adequately covers the output structure and key behaviors. It lists the types of results (per-day breakdown, period totals, premium hours, risk days, etc.). It does not address error handling or edge cases, but the level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.
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 75%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions jurisdiction rule packs and output structure, but does not elaborate on parameter meanings or constraints. The schema already provides detailed descriptions for most parameters, so the description does not significantly enhance semantics.
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 starts with a specific verb 'Run a wage-and-hour compliance audit across multiple days' and clearly identifies the resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like resolve_day (single day) and evaluate_break_compliance (focused on breaks) by emphasizing multi-day, comprehensive audit with jurisdiction rules and per-day plus period totals.
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 use cases: 'Use this for monthly payroll review, pre-audit triage, or a manager dashboard.' This gives clear positive guidance on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context from siblings is sufficient for an agent to infer.
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, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's analytical actions (count, sort, dedup, etc.) and the output recommendation. It does not mention destructive intent or side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only diagnostic. Slightly more detail on non-modification would be ideal.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and provides a comprehensive overview without unnecessary words. Every clause adds value.
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 the nested object parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and output (a recommendation). It covers the key analytical aspects but lacks detail on the exact format of the return value or handling of edge cases like missing data.
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 50%; the description adds context for expectedShift (flags outside shift) but does not explain dedupeSeconds or the overall usage of punches array beyond the schema. The description compensates partially but could be more explicit about how each parameter influences the analysis.
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's purpose: triage raw clock punches by counting, sorting, deduping, and surfacing anomalies. It specifies precise actions (duplicates, odd-punch counts, bias, gaps) and outputs a recommendation. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like apply_rounding or audit_period_compliance.
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 implies usage before trusting punches, providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer alternatives among siblings. The context 'before trusting them' is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions.
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 exist, so description fully carries burden. It discloses input constraints (pattern format, date format, day count) and output structure (shift label, time window, null for rest). Does not state side effects, but generation is likely read-only. Adequate for a generation 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?
Two sentences: first states purpose and options, second details output. No fluff, every word adds value.
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?
No output schema exists; description covers return values completely (assignment per date with shift label and time window, null for rest). All parameters explained. Adequate for full understanding.
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 has 0% description coverage; description compensates by explaining the two options for 'pattern' (built-in enums listed, plus custom object with array of off or objects) and mentions 'startDate' and 'days' formats. Adds significant meaning beyond raw 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?
Description explicitly states 'Generate a rotating roster' and details output format (assignment per date with shift label and time window, or null). Clearly distinguishes from siblings which are unrelated (e.g., rounding, compliance).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Describes inputs (built-in patterns or custom cycles) and output, but does not specify when to use or avoid, nor prerequisites. Given sibling tools are unrelated, context is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.
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:

[![attendance-engine-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arifur9993/attendance-engine-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arifur9993/attendance-engine-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![attendance-engine-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arifur9993/attendance-engine-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/arifur9993/attendance-engine-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/arifur9993/attendance-engine-mcp'

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