time_list_approvalsList submitted time entry and expense approvals across the organization to review approval status, with page and per_page options.
List submitted time entry and expense approvals across the organization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful qualifier — only 'submitted' approvals, and org-wide rather than user-scoped — but says nothing about pagination limits, sort order, or result volume.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that carries the verb, the resource, the state filter ('submitted'), and the scope. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a paginated org-wide list the description omits pagination semantics and result ordering, leaving scope questions to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters; page and per_page have no descriptions at all. The description mentions no parameters, no pagination behavior, and no defaults, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap despite the familiar parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb ('List') plus a clearly bounded resource ('submitted time entry and expense approvals') and scope ('across the organization'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as time_list_time_entries or the create/update/delete approval tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (time_create_approval, time_delete_approval, time_update_time_approval_status), and no indication of prerequisites or typical workflow. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.