COR MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cor_change_hours_status

Update the status of a time entry to approved, rejected, or pending. Specify the time entry ID and new status to modify its workflow state.

Instructions

Change the status of a time entry.

Args: hours_id: The time entry ID status: New status (e.g. "approved", "rejected", "pending")

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": {
      "hours_id": "<hours_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "cor_change_hours_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`hours_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a write operation but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or constraints (e.g., whether changes are reversible or what status values are allowed). This under-disclosure leaves the agent guessing.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by parameter definitions in a standard docstring format. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that there is no output schema description and no annotations, the description covers the action and the two parameters but omits return value behavior and any preconditions or side effects. For a simple mutation, it is partially complete but could be improved with output implications.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by naming parameters and giving example status values ('approved', 'rejected', 'pending'). However, it does not provide a complete list of valid statuses or explain the hours_id format more precisely. It is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 the action ('Change the status') and the resource ('a time entry'). It is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cor_log_hours or cor_search_time_entries.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use cor_change_hours_status instead of cor_accept_suggested_hours. The description assumes the user already knows the context.

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

Deploy Server