timetree-worklog-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Preview a daily work log

preview_daily_worklog

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate and render a daily work log locally without saving or contacting TimeTree; returns Markdown, remote memo preview, secret warnings, and the previewHash needed before publishing.

Instructions

Validate and render a daily work log without saving or contacting TimeTree. Returns the full local Markdown, the exact remote memo title/note that a later publish would send, warnings for suspected secrets, and the previewHash required by publish_worklog. Never invents completion, dates, deadlines, decisions, or evidence.

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": {
      "date": "<date>",
      "executiveSummary": "<executiveSummary>"
    },
    "name": "preview_daily_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD form. Never infer a date the user did not provide.
`title`	No
`blockers`	No
`evidence`	No
`timezone`	No	IANA time zone, for example Africa/Accra or Europe/London
`decisions`	No
`nextActions`	No
`completedTasks`	No
`workInProgress`	No
`executiveSummary`	Yes

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool does not save or contact TimeTree, lists the returned artifacts (Markdown, remote memo title/note, secret warnings, previewHash), and adds important data-integrity guardrails about not inventing completion, dates, deadlines, decisions, or evidence. This is meaningful behavioral context that goes well beyond readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the core validate/render purpose first, then the no-save constraint, then the return values and guardrails. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is strong on purpose, side effects, and return intent, and the output schema means return values need not be fully described. But for a 10-parameter tool with low schema description coverage, the description leaves input semantics and required-field expectations under-explained, making it only adequately complete for correct invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 10 parameters with only 20% description coverage, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameter semantics. It does not explain the required date or executiveSummary fields, nor does it clarify the content arrays and their evidence relationships; the "never invents..." sentence is a useful constraint but not enough to resolve the parameter-level gaps.

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 uses specific verbs ("Validate and render") and a clear resource ("daily work log"), and explicitly distinguishes the tool from save/publish behavior by saying it runs "without saving or contacting TimeTree." It also names a concrete artifact (previewHash) that connects it to publish_worklog, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

The description clearly establishes the preview context and says the returned previewHash is required by publish_worklog, which strongly implies when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly compare itself with save_worklog, get_daily_worklog, or other siblings, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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

Deploy Server