Retrieve logged time and cost entries, filtered by project, task, date range, or person.
List logged time and cost entries, optionally scoped to a project or task, a date range, or one person.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | Inclusive end date. | |
| task_id | No | Limit to one task. Requires project_id. | |
| date_from | No | Inclusive start date. | |
| project_id | No | Limit to one project. | |
| user_email | No | Limit to one person's entries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says 'List logged time and cost entries'. It does not disclose response shape, aggregation behavior, permission requirements, or any side effects, though as a read-only list it is not misleading.
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 with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and every part of the sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or behavioral annotations, and without differentiation from similar report/summary siblings, it leaves some context gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds a compressed summary of the optional scoping but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('logged time and cost entries'), and identifies optional scoping dimensions. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_time_report or get_running_timers, so it falls short of full clarity.
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 that this tool is used to list filtered time/cost entries, but it gives no guidance on when to choose it over get_time_report or get_running_timers, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.