MCP Server for Visma Intempus

My Balances (Intempus)

intempus_get_my_balances

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve your own Intempus balances, including holiday, holiday-eligible leave, timebank/flex, and sickness, computed up to a chosen date (default today).

Instructions

Your balances (ferie, feriefri, timebank/flex, sygdom …) as computed by Intempus up to a date (default today). Holiday accrues at month end, so pass to = the end of the holiday year to see the full entitlement. Only balances visible to employees.

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": "intempus_get_my_balances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default date, that holiday accrues at month end (explaining why results shift), and the employee-visible scoping constraint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the accrual tip and the visibility caveat. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a no-required-param read tool with no output schema, the description covers the concept, default, and accrual timing well. It still leaves the `from` parameter and the shape of returned balances (units, keys) entirely unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only half-delivers: it explains that `to` defaults to today and why a specific `to` matters, but the `from` parameter is never mentioned or explained anywhere.

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 names a concrete resource ('your balances (ferie, feriefri, timebank/flex, sygdom…)') and states it is computed by Intempus up to a date. No sibling tool covers balances, so it is distinguishable in practice, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with an alternative.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: 'pass to = the end of the holiday year to see the full entitlement,' and notes the default (today). It also scopes the audience ('Only balances visible to employees'), but offers no when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance.

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

Deploy Server