Leave Manager MCP Server

cancel_leave

Cancel an existing leave request by supplying its leave ID to remove it from the records, resolving incorrect or unwanted time-off entries.

Instructions

Cancel an existing leave request.

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": {
      "leaveId": "<leaveId>"
    },
    "name": "cancel_leave"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leaveId`	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 provided, so description must carry full burden. 'Cancel' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the cancellation is irreversible, whether it requires special permissions, how it affects leave balance). Does not contradict any annotations since none exist.

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, perfectly concise. No fluff, front-loaded action. It serves the purpose with minimal words.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is lacking. It doesn't mention expected outcome, error conditions, or anything about the cancellation process. For a simple tool with one param, it is minimal but functional, yet incomplete in providing useful context.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description doesn't explain the leaveId parameter beyond its name from the schema. The description simply says 'an existing leave request' without adding meaning like what the ID format is or where to find it. With 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Cancel an existing leave request.' It specifies the action and object, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools like apply_leave and get_leave_history are distinct. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions for cancellation, such as approval status or time limitations. The context is implied but not stated, so no exclusions or alternative references.

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

Deploy Server