Retrieve attendance adjustment requests for the signed-in employee, optionally filtered by from and to dates, to review submitted attendance corrections.
Attendance adjustment requests for the signed-in employee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toDate | No | Last day, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today on this machine. | |
| fromDate | No | First day, YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to 1 January of this year. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that results are read-only, whether they are paginated, whether all statuses are returned, or what the default date window yields, all of which are relevant for a list endpoint.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though being a noun fragment rather than a full statement limits how well it leads the reader.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source, and it omits return shape, volume, and filtering behavior. The scope statement (signed-in employee) is a useful anchor, but coverage is only minimally adequate for a list tool with this many siblings.
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 100% and both parameters document their format and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about the date window beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 names a specific resource (attendance adjustment requests) and scope (signed-in employee), which is better than a bare restatement of the name. However, there is no verb and no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as get_attendance_requests and get_partial_day_requests, leaving the agent to guess which request type applies.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools it overlaps with. The agent gets no signal for choosing between this and get_attendance_requests or get_partial_day_requests.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.