amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

start_tracking

Idempotent

Start time tracking on any task by supplying its task ID. Log active work duration and keep progress accurate in Amazing Marvin.

Instructions

Start time tracking on a task.

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_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "start_tracking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_id`	Yes	Task ID

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

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates a new time track or overwrites an existing one) or requirements like authentication. The idempotency hint is useful, but the description does not elaborate on it.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and no information is extraneous.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not provide workflow context (e.g., that it pairs with stop_tracking) or mention any preconditions. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value explanation.

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% with task_id described as 'Task ID', so the schema carries the meaning. The description does not add any additional context about the parameter, but the baseline of 3 applies since the schema is sufficient.

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 action 'start time tracking' and the resource 'a task'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'stop_tracking' by describing the opposite operation. However, it lacks specificity about what 'time tracking' entails or what constitutes a task state.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions for starting tracking, prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

Deploy Server