timetree-worklog-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Publish a work log to TimeTree

publish_worklog

Publishes a saved work log as one all-day memo in the configured private TimeTree calendar, reconciling first to prevent duplicates and verifying the created memo by read-back.

Instructions

Explicit remote write. Publishes a saved work log as one all-day TimeTree memo in the single configured private calendar. Requires remote writes enabled, credentials, a previewHash that matches the current saved revision, no suspected secrets, and confirmation PUBLISH. It reconciles first to avoid duplicates, verifies the created memo by reading it back, and returns UNCERTAIN or CONFLICT instead of claiming success. No destructive or update operation is provided.

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": {
      "worklogId": "<worklogId>",
      "previewHash": "<previewHash>",
      "confirmation": "<confirmation>"
    },
    "name": "publish_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`worklogId`	Yes
`calendarId`	No
`previewHash`	Yes
`confirmation`	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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses pre-write reconciliation to avoid duplicates, post-write read-back verification, and that it returns UNCERTAIN or CONFLICT rather than a false success. These are exactly the nontrivial behaviors an agent needs, and the 'no destructive or update operation' statement is consistent with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the write nature and target land in the first sentence, preconditions next, then post-write behavior. No filler and no repetition of the title or schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, yet the description still names the failure statuses (UNCERTAIN, CONFLICT). Preconditions, duplicate handling, and verification are all covered for a write tool, leaving nothing material for an agent to guess.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for three parameters: previewHash must match the current saved revision, confirmation must be exactly 'PUBLISH', and worklogId refers to a saved work log. calendarId is left unexplained — the 'single configured private calendar' phrasing hints it is optional/redundant but never says so explicitly.

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 resource ('Publishes a saved work log'), the artifact produced ('one all-day TimeTree memo'), and the scope ('single configured private calendar'). This clearly separates it from save_worklog (local persistence) and preview_daily_worklog without needing the schemas.

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?

Enumerates concrete preconditions for use: remote writes enabled, credentials present, previewHash matching the current saved revision, no suspected secrets, and confirmation literal 'PUBLISH'. It also notes no destructive or update operation exists, steering the agent away from expecting mutation of existing entries. It does not name the sibling that produces the previewHash (preview_daily_worklog), leaving that routing step implicit.

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

Deploy Server