Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Vigilo MCP Server

Vigilo MCP Server

by fredrsat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

absences

Retrieve a child's school non-attendance records by child ID from the Norwegian parent portal.

Instructions

Fravær for et barn.

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": {
      "child_id": "<child_id>"
    },
    "name": "absences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
child_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read or write, whether authentication/consent is required (notably relevant given the sibling 'consent_forms'), nor any scoping or rate-limit behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective conciseness. There is no front-loaded verb or actionable detail.

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?

With only one required parameter and an output schema present, the tool is simple enough that return values need not be described. Still, the description omits the operation type and any context, leaving the agent guessing what calling it actually does.

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% for the single parameter child_id. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning at all — it does not say whether the ID is a UUID, external identifier, or reference, nor what 'absence' means for that child.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Fravær for et barn' (absences for a child) merely restates the tool name plus a scope modifier. It contains no verb (list? create? query?) and gives no indication of what operation is performed on the absences, so an agent cannot distinguish its purpose from sibling tools like list_children or scheduling_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as web_list_children or scheduling_events, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools