Skip to main content
Glama

clio_list_time_entries

Read-onlyIdempotent

List time entries from Clio via the authenticated connector. Returns time entries for the specified project and account.

Instructions

Clio connector operation list_time_entries (platform tool clio.list_time_entries).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectYes
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Approval Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / effect
      Added value: +{
      +  "const": "read",
      +  "title": "Effect",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Idempotency Key"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Id"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_ref
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Project Ref"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "effect"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context that `effect` must be `read` and that Spring verifies it, plus the governed-routing constraint. However, it does not disclose list behavior such as pagination or filtering, and the `approval_ref` line about resuming a write is generic and potentially confusing for a read-only operation.

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 routing constraint is front-loaded and the parameter block is compact, with no filler. The opening line is slightly redundant with the tool name and platform tool identifier, but overall every line earns its place.

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?

With 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide enough operational detail to invoke the tool correctly, but it does not explain how to combine routing parameters, what to put inside `arguments`, or when this tool should be preferred over related Clio tools. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation context remains under-specified.

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 0%, so the parameter list in the description adds meaning that the schema lacks: each parameter gets a one-line gloss, such as `arguments` being a JSON string and `connector_account_ref` being a project-bound alias. However, the explanations are generic and do not describe how to structure the `arguments` JSON for Clio time entries or which routing parameters are actually needed for a successful call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The name and the opening line identify this as the Clio `list_time_entries` operation, but the description never states in plain language that the tool lists Clio time entries or what it returns. It relies on the tool name to convey the resource and action, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like `clio_api_request` or `smokeball_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?

The description says the tool 'routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' which hints at operational context, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `clio_search`, `clio_request`, or other connector list tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or selection conditions.

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