Retrieve remote work and remote clock-in requests for the signed-in employee, filtered by a date range. Use it to review or verify remote work history.
Remote clock-in and working-remotely 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 this is a read-only listing, whether results are paginated, sorted, or scoped by status, nor what permissions are needed. The only behavioral hint is the 'signed-in employee' scope.
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?
One short sentence with no waste, which is appropriately front-loaded. But brevity here borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — there is only a single clause of content.
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 return shape (list of requests with what fields) and usage constraints. It omits return format, pagination, status filtering, and any relationship to the many sibling request-listing tools.
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 carry their own format and default documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about the date range (inclusive/exclusive boundaries, max span, timezone), so the baseline 3 applies.
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 the resource (remote clock-in / working-remotely requests) and scopes it to the signed-in employee, which does separate it from siblings like get_leave_requests or get_expense_claims. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so it only implicitly conveys that it retrieves these records rather than creating or approving them.
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 call this versus related siblings such as get_attendance_requests or get_current_shifts. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no indication of what the caller should do with the results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.