Skip to main content
Glama

Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Log time

log_time
Destructive

Add a timesheet entry for a staff member, optionally on a job, with billing rate and notes. Adds one entry to Timesheets from start to end (same day, at most 24 hours) for a staff member (default the signed-in user), on a job or on none, at a billing rate (default the staff member's own) with the staff member's cost rate, as the New Timesheet Entry dialog does. Time on a job shows in its costs, the job profitability report and can be invoiced. It reaches no one.

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": {
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "log_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesFinish, the same day as start.
notesNo
staffNoStaff member's full name. Default: you.
startYesStart, ISO 8601; no zone = company time.
job_idNoThe job the time was spent on (list_jobs). Default: no job.
billing_rateNoBilling rate name (e.g. Standard Labour Rate). Default: the staff member's own rate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutation and open-world profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that job-linked time flows into job costs and profitability and becomes invoiceable, which is a consequential side effect an agent should know before calling. It also asserts 'It reaches no one,' presumably meaning no notifications are sent, though that phrasing is cryptic and it never explains recoverability despite destructiveHint=true.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence is a clean, front-loaded summary, but the second largely re-walks the same fields (staff, job, billing rate) to attach constraints, so there is noticeable repetition. The closing fragment 'It reaches no one.' is too terse to be self-explanatory and does not earn its place as written.

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?

Six parameters at 83% schema coverage, no output schema, and no nested objects — the description covers creation semantics, defaults, date constraints, and downstream effects. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, aside from minor ambiguity about permissions.

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 already 83%, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: defaults for staff (signed-in user), job (none), and billing rate (the staff member's own), plus the automatic use of the staff member's cost rate and the 24-hour/same-day ceiling on start-end. It does not clarify the billing_rate name-vs-id expectation or whether notes are mandatory.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add a timesheet entry') and immediately scopes it: staff member, optional job, billing rate, notes, spanning start to end within the same day. This is unmistakably distinct from the read-side sibling list_timesheets, and the 'as the New Timesheet Entry dialog does' anchor ties it to a concrete product concept.

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?

The 'as the New Timesheet Entry dialog does' analogy and the downstream effects (shows in job costs, profitability report, invoiceable) imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative or prerequisite such as which role may log time for another staff member.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.