Fetch the signed-in employee's Keka attendance calendar for a given date range, defaulting to the last 7 days. Use it to review daily attendance status and dates.
Attendance calendar 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 6 days before toDate. |
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, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, the default date window, or the shape of the returned calendar. 'Signed-in employee' is the only useful hint, implying no user identifier is needed.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the resource. It is efficient, though efficiency here shades into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the date-window behavior and what the calendar contains, but it stops at naming the resource. It is not sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this tool confidently.
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 coverage is 100% and both date parameters already document their formats and defaults, so the description adds nothing. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Names a specific resource (attendance calendar) scoped to the signed-in employee, so the agent knows what it fetches. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like get_attendance_summary, get_last_week_attendance, or get_attendance_status, leaving the agent to guess which calendar-like view is intended.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Among ~40 attendance/leave siblings, an agent gets no signal about when a calendar view beats a summary or status call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.