hr-agent-mcp

aprovar_ajuste

Approve a pending time adjustment with a required justification. The action corrects the time record and logs it in the audit trail.

Instructions

Aprova um ajuste de ponto pendente. AÇÃO DE ESCRITA com auditoria.

Use somente quando a gestora pedir explicitamente para aprovar um ajuste. Exige o id do ajuste (veja listar_ajustes_pendentes) e uma justificativa. A aprovação corrige a batida e registra na trilha de auditoria.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ajuste_id": "<ajuste_id>",
      "justificativa": "<justificativa>"
    },
    "name": "aprovar_ajuste"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ajuste_id`	Yes
`justificativa`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it is a WRITE ACTION with audit, and explains that approval corrects the clock-in/out and records in the audit trail, sufficient behavioral context.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place (purpose, usage condition, behavioral note).

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description adequately covers purpose, usage, inputs, and behavior, though output details are left to the schema.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by stating that ajuste_id comes from listar_ajustes_pendentes and that justificativa is required. However, it does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 'Approve a pending time adjustment' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listar_ajustes_pendentes which lists adjustments.

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 explicitly states 'Use only when the manager explicitly asks to approve an adjustment' and directs the user to listar_ajustes_pendentes to obtain the adjustment ID, 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.

Deploy Server