kimai-timelog-mcp

list_activities

Retrieve activities, optionally filtered by project or name, to identify valid options for time logging.

Instructions

List activities, optionally the ones valid for a given project.

Args: project: project name or id. Omit to list every activity. search: optional substring filter on the activity name.

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_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`search`	No
`project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses filtering behavior via 'project' and 'search', but does not mention auth requirements, ordering, pagination, or side effects—though 'List' implies a read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and parameter details in a clean list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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?

Given an output schema exists and both parameters are fully described, the description is largely complete. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'valid for a given project' means and no usage guidance is given relative to siblings, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's bare type/default information: 'project: project name or id. Omit to list every activity' and 'search: optional substring filter on the activity name.' This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'List activities' with an optional project filter. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_* tools beyond the resource name, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parameter guidance is clear, especially 'Omit to list every activity' and 'optional substring filter on the activity name.' However, it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like list_projects or list_timesheets.

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

Deploy Server