Leave Manager MCP Server

apply_leave

Submit a leave request for an employee by specifying employee ID, leave type, start and end dates, and reason. Select from casual, sick, earned, or unpaid leave; the system records the request for approval or further processing.

Instructions

Apply for leave for an employee.

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": {
      "employeeId": "<employeeId>",
      "leaveType": "<leaveType>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "apply_leave"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes
`endDate`	Yes
`leaveType`	Yes
`startDate`	Yes
`employeeId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states that leave is applied for, but does not disclose side effects, potential validations, approval implications, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 one-line description is clear and front-loaded, with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is short and easy to parse, though its brevity sacrifices important operational details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a 5-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, output schema, or parameter explanations, the description is not sufficient to support correct invocation. It captures the core action but leaves critical operational context undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage and no mention of parameters in the description, the agent receives no additional semantic meaning. The schema provides names and types, but nothing explains date formats, reason expectations, or how the employeeId is resolved.

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 'Apply for leave for an employee' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly communicating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling read and cancel tools by indicating the creation/submission action.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage can only be inferred from the action itself, making this a weak dimension.

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

Deploy Server