amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

get_time_tracks

Read-only

Retrieve time-tracking history for up to 100 tasks by providing task IDs. Get the source-of-truth records for analysis or reporting.

Instructions

Get time-tracking history for up to 100 tasks. Get time-tracking history for the given tasks (the source of truth, max 100 per call).

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": {
      "task_ids": "<task_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_time_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_ids`	Yes	Up to 100 task IDs

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-open-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the 'source of truth' characterization and the 100-task cap, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or what historical data is included beyond what the schema and output schema likely convey.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description contains two sentences that repeat nearly the same information. The second sentence adds only 'source of truth' and the max-100 constraint, which is already implied in the first sentence, so the extra sentence does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is fetched and the call limit. The remaining context is adequately supplied by the annotations and schema.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single task_ids parameter is documented as 'Up to 100 task IDs.' The description repeats that limit ('max 100 per call') without adding examples, batching advice, or additional parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get time-tracking history' for up to 100 tasks. It is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from related siblings like get_tracked_item or get_today_time_blocks.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_tracked_item, get_today_time_blocks, or start_tracking. The phrase 'source of truth' hints at authority, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server