Retrieve a specific time activity record by its ID from QuickBooks Online, enabling you to access detailed time tracking data for review or integration.
Get a specific TimeActivity record by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeActivityId | Yes | The unique TimeActivity ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description only indicates a read operation ('get') but provides no additional behavioral details such as authentication, rate limits, error handling (e.g., behavior if ID not found), or side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, very concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include minimal context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low complexity, the description is minimal. It does not explain the nature of a TimeActivity record, expected return structure, or any constraints. For a get operation, this may be borderline adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter as 'The unique TimeActivity ID'. The description adds no further meaning beyond restating 'by its ID'. With high coverage, baseline score is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific TimeActivity record by its ID. The verb 'get' and resource 'TimeActivity record' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list (which returns multiple) and create/update (which modify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific ID is known ('by its ID'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list, nor does it provide any exclusions or context for when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.