Skip to main content
Glama
nishankuu

Leave Management MCP Server

by nishankuu
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    Each tool targets a distinct aspect of leave management: balance, application, and history. There is no overlap in purpose, though descriptions are somewhat minimal. Overall, an agent can easily tell them apart.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All three tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_leave_balance, apply_leave, get_leave_history). The verb 'get' is used for two tools, which is acceptable since they retrieve different resources. No mixed conventions or chaotic naming.

    Tool Count3/5

    Three tools is on the low side for a typical MCP server, but for a focused leave management domain it covers the core actions. It feels slightly thin, but each tool earns its place. The count is borderline but justifiable.

    Completeness2/5

    The server provides basic leave operations (check balance, apply, view history) but lacks essential actions like cancel/withdraw a leave request, approve/reject (for managers), or update a pending request. These gaps could cause agent failures in real workflows.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 2.6/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to state whether this is a read-only or mutating action, what data is returned (e.g., list of leave records, dates, statuses), or any limitations (e.g., date range, employee scope). The description is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

    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?

    The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but lacks any structured detail. It is front-loaded with the key action, yet important behavioral and usage information is missing, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

    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 tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what 'leave history' contains, how to interpret results, or any constraints. A simple tool might be acceptable with more detail, but this falls short.

    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%, and there is no explanation of the 'employee_id' parameter beyond the schema. The description adds no meaning, such as format (e.g., UUID, email), required access, or how the ID relates to the employee. For a required parameter, this is a significant gap.

    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 clearly states 'Get leave history for the employee', indicating a read operation on leave records. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('leave history'), but does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_leave_balance' which also reads but returns balance data.

    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 vs. alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'apply_leave' is for creating requests or that 'get_leave_balance' shows remaining days. The description gives no context on appropriate use cases.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations exist, so description carries burden. It states read-only behavior ('Check'), which is clear. However, it doesn't disclose mutability (none), required permissions, or whether balance is real-time or cached. Adequate but not detailed.

    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?

    One short sentence directly stating the tool's purpose with no filler. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

    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?

    Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema). The description suffices for basic use, but for a balance check tool, details like output format (days? hours?) or constraints (leave types) would enhance completeness. Meets minimum viability.

    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% with one parameter. Description doesn't explain 'employee_id' beyond what the schema shows (employee ID). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema is minimal, but description adds no parameter detail.

    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 clearly states the tool checks remaining leave days for an employee, using a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('leave days'). It distinguishes from siblings: 'apply_leave' involves submission, 'get_leave_history' shows past records.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies use when needing current balances, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given siblings, context hints (e.g., don't use for history or applying) are missing.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The example implies the tool creates or submits leave, which signals a write operation, but no details are given about side effects, required permissions, approval flows, or whether overlapping leave is handled. This is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

    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 a single sentence with an example, which is perfectly concise. Every element earns its place: the verb, the object, the parameter hint, and the format example. No unnecessary words or fluff.

    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 the tool has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action and one parameter's format but leaves 'employee_id' largely unexplained and omits any indication of return values, error handling, or behavioral caveats. It is complete enough for a straightforward action but not robust.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0% (parameters have no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. The description adds meaning by showing the expected date format via example and implies the 'leave_dates' array structure. However, 'employee_id' is not elaborated beyond the schema title, missing an opportunity to explain its format or source.

    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 clearly states the tool's purpose: applying leave for specific dates, with a concrete example of the date format. It uses a specific verb+resource combination ('Apply leave') and distinguishes its action from the sibling tools (get_leave_balance, get_leave_history) which are read-only queries.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description provides a concrete usage example (the array of dates) but gives no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The example implies usage context but lacks explicit direction.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp_project MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp_project MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nishankuu/mcp_project'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server