Provides tools for starting and stopping time tracking, retrieving the current time entry, and listing workspaces in Toggl.
Provides tools for starting and stopping time tracking, retrieving the current time entry, and listing workspaces in Toggl Track.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Lazy Toggl MCP Server start tracking 'design review meeting'"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides tools for interacting with Toggl time tracking.
Start/stop time tracking
Get current entry
List workspaces
Related MCP server: Toggl MCP Server
start_tracking
Start tracking time for a new task
Inputs:
title (string): Title/description of the task to track
workspace_id (integer): Workspace ID (optional, uses default if not provided)
project_id (integer): Project ID (optional)
tags (string[]): List of tags (optional)
stop_tracking
Stop the currently running time entry
No input required
Returns confirmation of stopped time entry
list_workspaces
List all available workspaces
No input required
Returns list of workspaces with their IDs and names
show_current_time_entry
Show the currently running time entry, if any
No input required
Returns:
If tracking: Task description, entry ID, workspace, start time, running duration, tags, and project (if any)
If not tracking: A message indicating no time entry is currently running
This server uses the Toggl Track API v9. The following endpoints are utilized:
GET /me - Get user information
GET /workspaces - List workspaces
GET /me/time_entries/current - Get current running time entry
POST /workspaces/{workspace_id}/time_entries - Start time tracking
PATCH /workspaces/{workspace_id}/time_entries/{time_entry_id}/stop - Stop time tracking
Clone/create this project
Install dependencies with uv:
cd lazy-toggl-mcp
uv syncGo to Toggl Track
Sign in to your account
Click on your profile picture/avatar in the top right corner
Go to "Profile" or "Settings"
Find your "API Token" - copy this long string of characters
Add the following configuration to your MCP settings file:
{
"mcpServers": {
"lazy-toggl-mcp": {
"autoApprove": [],
"disabled": false,
"timeout": 60,
"type": "stdio",
"transportType": "stdio",
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"run",
"--directory",
"/path/to/lazy-toggl-mcp",
"python",
"server.py"
],
"env": {
"TOGGL_API_TOKEN": "your-actual-api-token-here"
}
}
}
}Important: Replace /path/to/lazy-toggl-mcp with the actual path to this project and your-actual-api-token-here with your real Toggl API token.
lazy-toggl-mcp/
├── src/
│ └── toggl_server/
│ ├── __init__.py # Package initialization
│ ├── main.py # MCP server implementation (new structure)
│ ├── models.py # Data models and type definitions
│ ├── toggl_api.py # Toggl API client
│ └── utils.py # Utility functions
├── main.py # CLI interface for testing
├── server.py # Main MCP server entry point
├── pyproject.toml # Project configuration and dependencies
├── README.md # This file
├── uv.lock # Dependency lock file
├── .gitignore # Git ignore patterns
└── .python-version # Python version specificationMIT License - feel free to modify and use as needed.
List all available workspaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as read-only safety, required authentication, potential pagination, or the structure of the returned list. While a simple list operation implies no side effects, this is not explicitly conveyed, leaving some ambiguity.
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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word adds value.
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?
Given there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete enough overview for a simple list operation. It does not specify the return format or any caveats, but the core functionality is clearly conveyed. A small improvement would be mentioning the return structure, but it is not necessary for such a trivial tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate, as the schema already fully covers the (empty) parameter space.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (start_tracking, stop_tracking, show_current_time_entry) which are all time-tracking operations, making this the obvious choice for workspace enumeration.
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 usage when one needs to see available workspaces, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is straightforward enough that it is easy to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Show the currently running time entry, if any
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The phrase 'if any' discloses that the tool handles the case of no running entry, which is a useful detail. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the verb 'Show' implies safety. This provides some but not rich behavioral transparency.
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, concise sentence of eight words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it shows the currently running time entry, or explicitly handles the absence of one. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, giving it a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to explain, and the schema's 100% coverage confirms this.
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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and identifies a precise resource: 'the currently running time entry.' The qualifier 'if any' adds nuance. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_tracking, stop_tracking, and list_workspaces, which serve different purposes.
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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of checking status before starting/stopping a timer, nor any exclusions or context for how it fits into a workflow. The usage is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start tracking time for a new task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | List of tags (optional) | |
| title | Yes | Title/description of the task to track | |
| project_id | No | Project ID (optional) | |
| workspace_id | No | Workspace ID (optional, uses default if not provided) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether starting a new task stops an existing timer), permissions required, or return value behavior.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Description is minimal; with no output schema, it does not mention what the tool returns or any behavioral effects. Sibling tools suggest a workflow but the description does not explain how this tool fits (e.g., whether it stops existing tracking).
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 has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides all necessary information.
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 ('Start tracking') and the resource ('time for a new task'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_tracking and show_current_time_entry.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The verb 'Start' implies usage but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop the currently running time entry
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 does not disclose what happens if no time entry is running, whether the stopped entry is returned, or any side effects, leaving critical behavioral details unknown.
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?
A single, direct sentence that conveys the tool's entire purpose without any filler. Exceptionally concise and front-loaded.
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?
While the tool is simple, the description omits edge-case behavior and return value information, especially since there is no output schema. It is minimally viable but leaves questions about error handling and response format.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (100%). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 when there are no params, and the description adds no unnecessary param details.
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 uses a specific verb 'Stop' and identifies the resource 'the currently running time entry', making it clear what the tool does. It clearly differs from sibling tools like start_tracking and show_current_time_entry.
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 purpose implies usage—stopping an active time entry—and complements start_tracking and show_current_time_entry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0list_workspacesshow_current_time_entrystart_trackingstop_trackingScored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a distinct action: starting, stopping, listing workspaces, and viewing the current entry. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (start_tracking, stop_tracking, list_workspaces, show_current_time_entry).
Four tools is well-scoped for a minimal time tracking server, covering the essential actions without unnecessary bloat.
The core start/stop/current workflow is covered, but there are significant gaps: no way to view past time entries, update, or delete them. After stopping, users have no way to review what was tracked.
Track time on usetimebook.com - start/stop timers, log entries, list projects/clients.
Read time entries, projects, clients, tasks and invoices; log and update tracked time.
Read teams, spaces, lists and tasks; create, update and comment on tasks and track time.
Manage Timequip projects, tasks, comments, members, and dashboards through MCP.
