Submits a leave application for an employee using their ID and specified dates, returning the application status.
Apply for leave for an employee.
:param emp_id: Employee ID
:param leave_dates: List of leave dates in YYYY-MM-DD format
:return: Leave application status message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emp_id | Yes | ||
| leave_dates | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the application is auto-approved or pending, whether it fails when balance is insufficient, whether duplicate or overlapping dates are rejected, or whether the write is reversible. The only signal is the bare word "Apply", which implies mutation but describes none of its consequences.
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?
It is short, but it is an unedited docstring dump with ':param:'/':return:' markup rather than prose written for an agent. The ':return:' line is wasted space because an output schema already exists, and the useful format detail is buried mid-line after a near-tautological param gloss.
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?
With an output schema present, omitting return detail is fine, but this is a mutation tool with zero annotations and only two lines of description. Key context an agent needs—approval behavior, balance validation, date-range rules, error conditions—is absent, leaving the definition too thin for a write operation.
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, and it partially does by specifying the YYYY-MM-DD format for leave_dates and giving an example date. The emp_id entry just restates "Employee ID" with no format or source, and no constraints (must the list be contiguous? sorted? max length?) are added.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Apply for leave for an employee") so the agent can tell this is the write counterpart to the read-only siblings get_employee_leave_balance and get_leave_history. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so sibling differentiation is only implied by name.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the adjacent tools. An agent is never told to check get_employee_leave_balance first or how this relates to get_leave_history; usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.