Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cronometer MCP

Cronometer MCP

by ChrisJVanek
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

connection_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify that your Cronometer login works and confirm which account is connected, so you can troubleshoot access before using other tools.

Instructions

Check the Cronometer login works, and which account it is.

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": "connection_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this performs an actual login/auth check and discloses the account identity, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about failure behavior, latency, or whether it triggers network auth.

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?

A single short sentence with the verification purpose front-loaded and no redundant wording. Every clause earns its place by naming both the check and the returned identity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and the tool is simple with no parameters. It is nearly complete; only the expected outcome on a failed login is left unstated, which is a minor gap for an auth-check tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('the Cronometer login'), plus a second outcome ('which account it is'), so an agent knows it validates credentials and returns identity. It is clearly distinct from the data-mutation and data-retrieval siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say so.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight/auth verification step before calling data tools, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or what to do if it fails. No alternatives are named or needed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools