leave_export_icsExport all approved leave requests as an .ics calendar file; optionally provide a path to save it locally.
Pro. Export all APPROVED leave as an .ics calendar (RFC5545). Returns the calendar text; pass path to also write it to a local file. watermark-free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Local .ics file to write |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the return value (calendar text), the optional file-write side effect via path, and the watermark-free output. It does not contradict the annotations since the file write is to a specified local output file rather than the tool's core data state.
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 compact and front-loads the core behavior after a one-word 'Pro.' marker. 'Pro.' and 'watermark-free' are minor extras, but they do not bloat the text or obscure the main call semantics.
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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the input, and the return format. Small ambiguities like what 'local file' means for path resolution remain, but they are not blocking for default invocation.
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 the only parameter (path) already has a schema description. The tool description repeats that path is used to write the file but adds no format, path-resolution, or overwrite details, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
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 uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('all APPROVED leave as an .ics calendar (RFC5545)'), unambiguously separating it from sibling tools like leave_list or leave_import. The optional file-write behavior is also clearly stated.
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?
The tool is clearly scoped to exporting approved leave in ICS format, so the intended use is inferable. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool provides the same calendar-export function, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.