A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceA read-only MCP server for querying Timely time tracking data, providing tools for project overviews, time spent summaries, and work log entries.
3
MIT
fortytimer-mcp
Officialby fortytimer
Related Servers
Alternatives to fortytimer-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn unofficial MCP server that exposes the Timetastic API to enable querying and managing absence & leave data.39MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server for Kimai time-tracking that provides read access to the full API and guarded write tools for timesheets, with explicit authorization and backups.2824 npmAGPL 3.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceRead-only MCP server for Clockify time tracking, exposing 60 raw read tools and five workflows for status, workspace overview, and review of days/weeks.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for SolidTime — the open-source time tracking app. Enables start/stop timers, manage time entries, projects, clients, tags, and tasks directly from MCP-compatible clients.3MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA TypeScript-based MCP server that integrates with the Clockodo time tracking API, enabling access to users, time entries, and projects.ISC
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Scored across 8 tools
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource: identity, overtime balance, vacation balance, time entries, project bookings, leave requests, users, and projects. The two time-related list tools are clearly separated by their descriptions, so there is little risk of an agent choosing the wrong one.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set follows a clear fortytimer_<verb>_<resource> pattern, with list_ for collections and get_ for balances. The only outlier is fortytimer_me, which lacks a verb but is a recognizable identity endpoint, making the naming mostly consistent with a minor deviation.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well-scoped for a time-tracking data server: reference data, balances, and detailed time/request records are each represented without redundancy. No tool feels extraneous, and the count is appropriate for the apparent purpose.
Completeness4/5
The read-side coverage is strong: identities, balances, time entries, project times, requests, users, and projects are all represented. However, no write or approval operations are exposed, so it cannot drive the full request lifecycle; for a query-oriented assistant this is a minor gap rather than a fatal one.
Maintenance
ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues