Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_timekeepers

Retrieve a paginated list of timekeepers in your firm, with optional filtering by active status.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Per-timekeeper billable/non-billable time summary is not in /v1; fails loudly. Use list_users for the firm's people list.

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_timekeepers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo
active_onlyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description openly states that the tool 'fails loudly,' indicating that invoking it will result in an error. With no annotations, this disclosure is complete and transparent about the tool's dysfunctional behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief (two sentences) but starts with a bracketed version note and followed by a negative statement, making it slightly confusing. It could be clearer in structure.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description indicates the tool fails, suggesting no useful output. It lacks information about the tool's intended functionality or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description provides no information about the three parameters (page, page_size, active_only). Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description states the tool provides a 'per-timekeeper billable/non-billable time summary' but immediately contradicts by saying it is not in /v1 and fails loudly. This makes the actual purpose unclear and potentially misleading.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly advises to 'Use list_users for the firm's people list,' providing a clear alternative and implying when not to use this tool. This is strong guidance despite the negative framing.

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