Stop an active task timer and save the elapsed time to the task.
Stop the running timer on a task and store the elapsed time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | Comment to store with the entry. | |
| task_id | Yes | Task whose timer to stop. | |
| project_id | Yes | Project the task belongs to. | |
| user_email | No | Person the timer belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect that elapsed time is stored, but it does not describe behavior when no timer is running, whether the optional comment is persisted, or how user_email affects the operation. This leaves behavior only partially transparent.
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, front-loaded with the verb and direct object, with no filler. It states both the action and the persistence side effect efficiently.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but brief. It covers the core action but omits error/edge behavior, response information, and the role of optional parameters user_email and comment; schema descriptions mitigate the parameter gap.
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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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 identifies a specific action (stop the running timer), the resource (a task), and the consequence (elapsed time stored). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like start_timer and get_running_timers.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tool is named. The usage is implied by the verb 'stop' and the presence of sibling tools like start_timer, but it is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.