Delete an absence or vacation for the authenticated user. Approved requests are withdrawn first, then removed because Clockodo blocks direct deletion.
Delete a vacation/absence for the authenticated user.
Approved absences are withdrawn (cancelled) first, because Clockodo refuses to delete them directly.
Args: absence_id: ID of the absence to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| absence_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered, yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral rule: approved absences are withdrawn first because Clockodo refuses direct deletion. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs before calling a destructive 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 core sentence and the withdrawal caveat are front-loaded with no wasted words, but the trailing "Args:" block largely repeats the one-parameter schema and adds little beyond the tautological label.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing an agent could not infer (approved-absence withdrawal). It could still mention error behavior or how to obtain a valid absence_id, but nothing critical is missing.
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 carry the parameter burden, and it only offers "ID of the absence to delete" — essentially a restatement of the name and type. It tells the agent nothing about where the ID comes from (e.g. get_my_absences) or format expectations.
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+resource ("Delete a vacation/absence") and scopes it to "the authenticated user," which cleanly separates it from add_my_vacation, edit_my_vacation, and delete_my_time_entry without needing to open a schema.
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 implied by the verb and the "my_vacation" naming, but the description never states when to prefer this over edit_my_vacation (e.g. cancelling vs. modifying) or any preconditions/exclusions. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.