mcp-server-smallinvoice

list_working_hours

Read-only

Retrieve a list of working hours entries with optional filters, full-text search, pagination, and configurable included keys.

Instructions

Returns list of working hours entries

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_working_hours"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`with`	No	Comma separated, optional keys that should be included in the response.
`q`	No	Value for full text search
`filter`	No	Filter expression (JSON)
`limit`	No	Limits the number of items returned. Number in a range [1-200]
`offset`	No	Offset of the first item to return. The offset of the initial item is 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey. The agent knows it's safe but lacks details on pagination or response format.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. No unnecessary words, but it lacks structure or additional context that could improve usability while remaining succinct.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 5 parameters, the description does not summarize filtering capabilities or return type. No output schema exists, and the description fails to provide behavioral context around pagination, date ranges, or typical use cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

All 5 parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no extra meaning. The schema already documents fields like 'with', 'q', 'filter', 'limit', and 'offset' adequately.

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 clearly states the verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of working hours entries'), distinguishing it from the singular 'get_working_hours' and other resource-specific list tools. However, it lacks detail on the nature of working hours entries.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_working_hours' or other list tools. The description does not provide context for selection.

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

Deploy Server