UseHourly

Hours per project

project_totals

Read-onlyIdempotent

See how much time was spent on each project by retrieving total logged hours for any date range.

Instructions

Logged hours per project: all time and within a date range (for example this month).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "project_totals"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	Last day of the range (inclusive), YYYY-MM-DD
`from`	Yes	First day of the range, YYYY-MM-DD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes
`projects`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping dimension (all-time vs. range) but doesn't clarify pagination, grouping, or how projects with zero hours appear.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and aggregation before the range qualifier. Nothing redundant, though the trailing parenthetical adds little.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple two-param read. Still, the required-range versus 'all time' ambiguity and the absence of any alternative-tool routing leave gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with explicit format and inclusivity notes on both params, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's 'all time and within a date range' actively implies the range may be optional, which conflicts with 'from' and 'to' both being required.

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 names a specific aggregation (logged hours) and the grouping dimension (per project), so an agent can tell it apart from raw listing tools like list_entries. The only blur is the 'all time and within a date range' phrasing, which is ambiguous given both range params are required.

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?

It never says when to use this instead of the many sibling reporting tools (annual_report, list_entries) or whether a date range is mandatory. Usage is only loosely implied by the mention of 'this month'.

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