harvest_stop_time_entryStop a currently running time entry (no-op error if it is already stopped). Harvest REST: PATCH /time_entries/{id}/stop. WRITE — modifies data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_entry_id | Yes | The running time entry id to stop (required). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the no-op error behavior and explicitly labels the operation as WRITE, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the structured annotation.
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 concise with two short sentences plus the REST endpoint and WRITE tag. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words.
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?
For a simple one-parameter mutation with complete schema coverage and relevant annotation, the description covers the key behavior including the edge case. No output schema exists, so return details are not required.
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 already fully describes the single parameter as 'The running time entry id to stop (required)', so the description adds little extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema 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 clearly states the specific action: stopping a running time entry. It distinguishes from related tools like restart_time_entry by specifying 'currently running' and the no-op error case.
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?
It explicitly says when to use (when a time entry is running) and when not (already stopped leads to no-op error), providing clear usage boundaries. It also implies the WRITE nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.