harvest-forecast-mcp

create_time_entry

Log time for a Harvest project and task by providing project ID, task ID, date, hours, and optional notes.

Instructions

Log time against a Harvest project and task.

Args:
    project_id: Harvest project ID.
    task_id: Harvest task ID.
    spent_date: Date the time was spent (YYYY-MM-DD).
    hours: Number of hours to log (can be decimal, e.g. 1.5).
    notes: Optional notes for the time entry.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "spent_date": "<spent_date>",
      "hours": "<hours>"
    },
    "name": "create_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	Yes
`notes`	No
`task_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`spent_date`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Log time', implying creation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or return value (though output schema exists).

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 concise with a clear purpose sentence and an organized Args block. Minor repetition of parameter names but overall efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers parameter semantics well and has output schema. Lacks usage guidelines but sufficient for a straightforward create action with no nested objects.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds value by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'spent_date: YYYY-MM-DD', 'hours: can be decimal'), going beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Log time against a Harvest project and task' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_time_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 (e.g., list_time_entries for reading). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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