timetree-worklog-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Generate a progress report

generate_progress_report

Build a Markdown progress report from local work logs for a date range and timezone, tying each item to its worklog ID and date and separating verified evidence from user-reported statements.

Instructions

Build a Markdown progress report from saved local work logs for an explicit date range and timezone. The report attributes every item to its worklog ID and date, distinguishes verified evidence from user-reported statements, and writes a local report file. It is limited to 366 calendar days per request and does not invent missing work, decisions, blockers, deadlines or completion.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "generate_progress_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD form. Never infer a date the user did not provide.
`from`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD form. Never infer a date the user did not provide.
`timezone`	No	IANA time zone, for example Africa/Accra or Europe/London

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 366-calendar-day cap, that a local report file is written, item-level attribution to worklog IDs and dates, and the no-fabrication guarantee. The one gap is what happens to an existing report file (overwrite vs new file), which matters for a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, then behavior, then limits. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the name or schema.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the key constraints (day cap, attribution, evidence-vs-reported distinction, no invention, local file write). Only the file-writing side effects (location/overwrite) are left unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraints: dates must be explicit (never inferred) and ranges are capped at 366 days, which directly governs how from/to must be supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Build a Markdown progress report from saved local work logs') plus the scope ('explicit date range and timezone'). No sibling produces a report, so the boundary against list_calendars/save_worklog/search_worklogs is implicitly obvious from the resource.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear usage context: it requires an explicit date range and timezone and reads saved local logs, which tells the agent a worklog must exist first. It does not name alternatives or say when not to call it (e.g. use preview_daily_worklog for a single day), so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server