Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Productive Simple MCP

Productive Simple MCP

by druellan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

list_time_entries

Read-only

Retrieve logged work records with optional filters by date, person, project, task, or service. Get time entries with related references for reporting and review.

Instructions

List time entries with optional date and relationship filters.

Returns logged work records and related references (person/service/task).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_time_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoOptional date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
afterNoOptional lower bound date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNoMaximum number of time entries to return (max 200)
beforeNoOptional upper bound date filter (YYYY-MM-DD)
task_idNoOptional task ID filter
person_idNoOptional person ID filter
project_idNoOptional project ID filter
service_idNoOptional service ID filter
page_numberNoPage number for pagination

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns 'logged work records and related references', providing context beyond the annotation without contradicting 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description mentions 'related references' which hints at the output structure. However, pagination behavior is not described (though parameters indicate it).

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 detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of filters but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists time entries with optional date and relationship filters, specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'time entries'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on other entities (e.g., tasks, people, folders).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or its alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools for time entries, usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools