leave_listLists all employees or leave requests, optionally filtered by employee and status, to help you review and manage staff absences.
List all employees, or all leave requests (optionally filtered by employee and/or status). Omit the filter to list requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter requests by status | |
| employee | No | Filter requests to one employee |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful default behavior (no filters means all requests) but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or response format for a list operation.
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?
Two short sentences contain the core behavior and a default-case hint with no filler. The wording is compact, though the employee/request ambiguity could be resolved without adding length.
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?
The tool has no output schema and presents a dual-purpose behavior, yet the description doesn't specify the trigger for listing employees versus listing requests. It also omits practical list-operation details like pagination, limits, or response structure, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?
Input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, providing the baseline. The description adds value by clarifying that the filters are optional, can be combined ('and/or'), and that omitting them returns all requests.
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 action ('List') and resources ('all employees', 'all leave requests') and mentions filters, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it never explains what determines whether employees or requests are returned; the schema has no parameter for selecting the resource type. This ambiguity keeps it from being fully clear.
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 description implies this is the go-to tool for listing leave data and gives a default-behavior hint ('Omit the filter to list requests'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings such as leave_balance or leave_export_ics, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.