Get the current user's time entry analytics for a date range, including hours breakdown by project and customer, billable vs non-billable split, and target comparison
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | End date for the analytics period (ISO 8601 format, e.g. 2026-01-31) | |
| start_date | Yes | Start date for the analytics period (ISO 8601 format, e.g. 2026-01-01) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output structure (breakdowns by project/customer, billable split, target comparison) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any limitations like pagination or date range constraints. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about behavioral expectations.
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 sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every part adds value. No redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema and the tool's analytical nature, the description adequately lists the key breakdowns (project, customer, billable split, target comparison). It lacks details on formatting or aggregation level but is sufficient for an agent to understand the return value.
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?
The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. The baseline of 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 clearly identifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current user's time entry analytics', and specifies the outputs: hours breakdown by project and customer, billable vs non-billable split, target comparison. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_time_entries (raw list) and get_hours_summary (aggregated without breakdowns).
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 the tool should be used when an agent needs analytics with breakdowns for a date range, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as list_my_time_entries for raw data. Usage context is clear but exclusions are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.
Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.
With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.