timetree-worklog-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Save a daily work log locally

save_worklog

Idempotent

Saves a dated work log to a local Markdown archive and SQLite ledger, returning a preview hash for review before optional publication.

Instructions

Save the work log to the local Markdown archive and SQLite ledger before any remote operation. This tool never contacts TimeTree. Saves are revisioned by date and timezone; identical content is idempotent. Use the returned previewHash with publish_worklog only after reviewing the preview.

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": "save_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
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional client-supplied key to make repeated saves idempotent
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds genuine context: it is local-only ('never contacts TimeTree'), revisions are keyed by date and timezone, and identical content is idempotent. The previewHash return contract is also disclosed, which helps downstream routing.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and destination, then the key constraint, then the downstream handoff. 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?

An output schema exists so return values need less explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a large, structured mutation tool with 11 params at 27% schema coverage, the description leaves too much of the payload shape unexplained, making it only minimally adequate.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 27% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy burden but says almost nothing about parameters beyond date/timezone revisioning and the idempotency key's purpose. Fields like evidence, blockers, decisions, and nextActions are entirely undocumented here, leaving a large gap the schema cannot fill.

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 (save) and resource (work log) plus the exact destinations (local Markdown archive and SQLite ledger), and distinguishes itself from the remote path by noting it never contacts TimeTree. An agent can tell it apart from publish_worklog immediately.

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?

Explicitly positions this as the local step 'before any remote operation' and directs the agent to use the returned previewHash with publish_worklog only after reviewing the preview. It does not, however, clarify its relationship to preview_daily_worklog or get_daily_worklog, which are plausible alternatives an agent might confuse it with.

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

Deploy Server