Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tlc-portal-mcp

tlc-portal-mcp

by mingovvv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

leave.list_requests

Retrieve leave requests filtered by status and date range to view application history and track approval progress.

Instructions

휴가 신청 내역을 조회한다.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "leave.list_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusesNo조회할 상태 목록
from_dateNo조회 시작일 (YYYY-MM-DD)
to_dateNo조회 종료일 (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '조회' implies read-only access, the description fails to mention pagination behavior (limit/offset), filtering capabilities (date ranges, status filtering), or what the returned structure contains.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the action verb, containing no wasted words. However, it arguably errs on the side of under-specification for a tool supporting complex filtering and pagination.

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 the presence of 5 parameters, pagination support, and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical operational context such as the default pagination limits, the fact that date ranges filter application dates, and the structure of returned request objects.

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 description coverage is 60% (limit and offset lack descriptions). The description provides no additional semantics to compensate for the undocumented pagination parameters or to explain the date filtering behavior, meeting the baseline expectation for moderate schema coverage.

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?

The description '휴가 신청 내역을 조회한다' uses a specific verb (조회한다/retrieve) with a clear resource (휴가 신청 내역/leave request records). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like cancel_request, submit_prepared_request, and get_balances by describing a read operation on request history rather than mutations or balance inquiries.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to filter by status vs. using cancel_request), nor mention that all parameters are optional with defaults. The description merely states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.

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