Retrieve the signed-in employee's attendance regularization requests within a date range, using optional fromDate and toDate filters.
Attendance regularization 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses the signed-in employee scoping. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention authentication requirements, pagination, or whether results are filtered by approval status, which would be helpful for a requests-listing 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the resource and scope, which is efficient for a simple read tool.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity, 2 optional date parameters with full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return format, ordering, or pagination behavior, but those gaps are partially offset by the well-documented schema.
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 each parameter has a clear description with format and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 3 is 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 identifies the specific resource (attendance regularization requests) and the scope (signed-in employee), which distinguishes it from many sibling tools like get_leave_requests or get_adjustment_requests. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not name a sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.