Skip to main content
Glama
dragosh29

Timesheet Portal MCP server

by dragosh29

List users

list_users
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch user records from a Timesheet Portal account, filtered by user ID, group code, or modification date; optionally include contact details.

Instructions

Users (GET /users): code, name, job title, role, employment type, group, home cost centre and line manager. Filters sent as documented: id (a single user), groupCode, ModifiedSince. Join and leave dates, the accounting code (which the spec says usually holds the payroll number), email, mobile, date of birth, gender, address and a limited-company contractor's company details only with include_contact_details. Bank details, national insurance and tax numbers, the payroll details in employmentDetails and HR personal details are never returned (includedFields is never sent).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idNoOnly this user (sent as id; the docs say 'Return a single user specified by the id')
max_pagesNoMaximum number of pages to fetch in this call (each page is one request against the 30-per-minute limit)
group_codeNoSent as groupCode
start_pageNoZero-based page to start from (next_page from a previous call)
max_resultsNoMost users to return in this call (default 100); the answer says how many were left out
modified_sinceNo
include_contact_detailsNoInclude join and leave dates, accounting (payroll) code, email, mobile, date of birth, gender, title, home address and limited-company details, and stop redacting email addresses, phone numbers, national insurance numbers and UK postcodes typed into names and other text (bank and card numbers are always removed)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context absent from structured fields: bank details, NI/tax numbers, payroll and HR personal details are never returned, and include_contact_details controls redaction of text fields. Rate-limit context exists but is carried in the schema, not the description.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the resource and its fields, then the filter contract, then the explicit exclusions. Dense but every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padded.

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?

With 7 params and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and what is withheld, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Pagination/leftover-count semantics live in the schema, so the combined picture is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 86%, so the schema does most of the work. The description still adds value by mapping caller concepts to wire names ('Filters sent as documented: id ... groupCode, ModifiedSince') and explaining the include_contact_details redaction scope.

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?

States the resource (Users / GET /users) and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool retrieves. Sibling list_* tools are differentiated only implicitly by resource name, which is distinct enough but not called out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the supported filters (id, groupCode, ModifiedSince) and explains when include_contact_details matters, implying usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over the sibling list_* tools or any exclusion conditions.

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