Submit an employee's leave request using their employee ID and selected leave dates. Get a status message confirming the application.
Apply for leave for an employee.
:param emp_id: Employee ID
:param leave_dates: List of leave dates
:return: Leave application status message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emp_id | Yes | ||
| leave_dates | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys only that a status message is returned; it does not say whether validation against leave balance occurs, whether dates must be future-dated, how duplicate or overlapping requests behave, or what permissions/authorization are required for a mutation.
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 short, front-loaded with the action, and free of padding. The param/return lines are slightly redundant given the structured schema, but they cost little space.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description should at minimum document date format, validation behavior, and error cases. It covers only the barest purpose and return summary, leaving gaps an agent must guess at to invoke it correctly.
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% for two required parameters. The description only restates the parameter names as 'Employee ID' and 'List of leave dates', adding no format details (e.g., emp_id format, date string format, or whether leave_dates are individual days or a range). It does not compensate for the empty schema.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Apply for leave for an employee.' This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_leave_history and get_employee_leave_balance. However, it never names those siblings or explains the boundary, so it stops at 4 rather than 5.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. Given siblings such as get_employee_leave_balance and get_leave_history, an agent would benefit from knowing whether to check balance or history first, but the description is silent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.