Create an absence record for an employee by specifying resource, absence type, and start and end dates. Supports vacation, sick leave, unpaid leave, training, or other reasons.
Create a new absence
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| reason | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| endDate | Yes | ||
| startDate | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the mutation ('create') and does not explain persistence behavior, default status, required permissions, validation rules, or the response. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward create operation, though it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with 6 parameters, 4 required fields, enum constraints, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is inadequate. The agent lacks information about required field semantics, type combinations, status default behavior, or what the create call returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings; it names none. Required parameters like resourceId, type, startDate, and endDate are left entirely to the schema. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names already present in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a new absence.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boond_absences_search, boond_absences_get, and boond_absences_update via the create operation. It lacks additional scoping details, but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied by the tool name and the imperative 'Create'; there is no explicit guidance about when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisites. The intended use case—creating a new absence—is reasonably inferable, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.