projectsUser's projects. Requires your own WakaTime personal OAuth token as _apiKey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | ||
| _apiKey | No | Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats. | |
| user_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / _apiKeyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your WakaTime personal OAuth access token (Bearer). Required for account data (current user, summaries, durations, heartbeats, goals, projects, commits); optional for public profiles and stats.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that a personal WakaTime OAuth token is required as _apiKey, but it does not explain output format, pagination, or other behavioral details.
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 very short and front-loads the resource and auth requirement without unnecessary text. Its terseness is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness problem.
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 many siblings and three parameters, yet the description omits usage guidance and fails to explain the required user_id or optional q. While an output schema exists, the definition remains too sparse for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.
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 description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not explain the required user_id or the q filter. It only repeats the _apiKey requirement already documented in the schema, so it does little to compensate for the low coverage.
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 says 'User's projects,' which restates the tool name/title without a verb or scope detail. It does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools such as goals, summaries, or stats.
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 only guidance is the authentication prerequisite for _apiKey. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no indication of when to choose projects over related WakaTime tools.
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.