Skip to main content
Glama
adrian-dotco

Harvest Natural Language Time Entry MCP Server

by adrian-dotco

list_tasks

Retrieve available tasks for a specific Harvest project to facilitate accurate time tracking and reporting.

Instructions

List available tasks for a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the 'list_tasks' tool. It takes a project_id, fetches task assignments from the Harvest API, and returns a JSON-formatted list of tasks with their IDs and names.
    case 'list_tasks': {
      const { project_id } = request.params.arguments as { project_id: number };
      const response = await this.axiosInstance.get(`/projects/${project_id}/task_assignments`);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(response.data.task_assignments.map((t: { task: { id: number; name: string } }) => ({
              id: t.task.id,
              name: t.task.name,
            })), null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
  • src/index.ts:288-301 (registration)
    Registration of the 'list_tasks' tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler, including its name, description, and input schema requiring a project_id.
    {
      name: 'list_tasks',
      description: 'List available tasks for a project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'Project ID',
          },
        },
        required: ['project_id'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'list_tasks' tool, specifying an object with a required numeric project_id.
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          project_id: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'Project ID',
          },
        },
        required: ['project_id'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'lists' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, filtering beyond project_id, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., task details, format), error handling, or behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns a list of tasks, more information on output and usage would be helpful to compensate for the lack of structured data.

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%, with the parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that tasks are listed for a project. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with additional context like format or constraints.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), specifying it's for a project. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists projects) and 'list_entries' (which likely lists time entries). However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., 'all' or 'active') or differentiate from 'get_time_report' (which might involve tasks).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id) or exclusions (e.g., not for archived tasks). The context implies it's for listing tasks, but there's no explicit comparison to siblings like 'log_time' (which might create tasks).

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/adrian-dotco/harvest-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server