entry_listList logged entries as a table of id, day, start, project, task, hours, billable, tags and note, newest first, with total hours. Free reads the last 7 days and says so; Pro reads the whole history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ISO date/time upper bound | |
| from | No | ISO date/time lower bound | |
| limit | No | Maximum rows, newest first (default 50) | |
| project | No | Filter by project name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the exact output columns, sort order (newest first), the inclusion of total hours, and the plan-dependent data scope. This gives the agent useful expectations without being verbose.
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 sentences, zero filler. The main behavior and output format are front-loaded, and the plan limitation is stated efficiently in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields, ordering, and the total-hours summary. It also discloses the Free vs Pro scope, which is critical for setting correct expectations. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.
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 100%, so all four parameters (to, from, limit, project) are documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the full coverage. It mentions 'project' as an output column but not as a filter, so no extra value is provided.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('logged entries'), and the exact output shape: a table of named columns, newest first, with total hours. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like entry_add, entry_delete, and report.
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 gives clear context: this tool returns a table of entries and is appropriate when that tabular view is needed. It also notes the Free vs Pro data availability limitation. It does not explicitly name alternatives like export_csv or report, but the intended use is strongly implied.
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.