Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List timesheets

list_timesheets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Timesheet entries in a date range: staff, job, customer, billing rate, hours, notes, invoiced. Returns the time entries between from and to (both days included, at most 62 days), oldest first, each with staff member, job and customer (none for time off a job), billing rate and whether it is billable, start and end (ISO 8601 with the company's UTC offset), hours, notes and whether it is on an invoice. staff and job_id narrow it. total_hours sums the entries returned.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "list_timesheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesLast day, up to 62 days after from.
fromYesFirst day.
staffNoOnly this staff member, by full name.
job_idNoOnly time on this job (list_jobs).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations already covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: a hard 62-day window, both endpoints inclusive, oldest-first ordering, ISO 8601 timestamps with the company's UTC offset, null job/customer for non-job time, and what each returned field means. That is well beyond what the annotations or schema disclose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource and scope before the return shape, with no filler sentences. Some clauses (both days included, at most 62 days) repeat the input schema, costing a bit of tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates every returned field, its format (ISO 8601 with UTC offset), ordering, and aggregation (total_hours) — enough for an agent to consume the result without guessing. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by clarifying that staff and job_id are filtering narrowers rather than required scope and by cross-referencing list_jobs for job_id. It mostly echoes the inclusive-days and 62-day constraints already present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource (timesheet entries in a date range) and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields versus list_jobs, list_invoices, or log_time. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to prefer or avoid, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by 'Returns the time entries between from and to' and by the narrowing parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of log_time as the write-side alternative. An agent can infer the purpose but must reason about selection itself.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources