kimai-mcp-server

List Kimai Projects

kimai_list_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List projects from Kimai API with optional customer filter, search, and pagination. Supports visibility and sort options.

Instructions

List projects visible to the Kimai API token from /api/projects, optionally filtered by customer. This tool is read-only.

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": "kimai_list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Kimai API page number for paginated endpoints.
`size`	No	Kimai API page size. Kimai supports a maximum size of 500.
`term`	No	Optional search term for endpoints that support it.
`order`	No	Optional sort direction.
`visible`	No	Optional visibility filter for endpoints that support it.
`customer`	No	Optional customer ID filter.
`order_by`	No	Optional Kimai orderBy field.
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown for human-readable summaries, json for structured output.	markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms read-only status and adds the endpoint source ('/api/projects') and the visible-to-token context, providing some extra value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences, no redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description covers the basic operation, it lacks details about pagination behavior, default ordering, or what the response contains. For a tool with 8 optional parameters and no output schema, more guidance would help.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('list') and resource ('projects'), and specifies optional filtering by customer. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'kimai_get_project' but does not differentiate from other list tools.

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 description gives clear context (read-only, customer filter) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kimai_get_project' or 'kimai_list_customers'.

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