fiken-mcp

fiken_list_time_entries

Read-only

List time entries for your company with optional filters by date, user, project, or activity.

Instructions

Returns time entries for the company

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "fiken_list_time_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No
`userId`	No
`endDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`pageSize`	No
`projectId`	No
`startDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`activityId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safe read behavior. The description adds minimal context beyond that, with no mention of pagination or result limits. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief (one sentence) but under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name without adding helpful details. Conciseness without substance is not efficient.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 7 optional parameters used for filtering and pagination, the description provides no guidance on how to use them. No output schema, so the agent has no idea what fields are returned. The tool requires much richer context to be usable.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 29% (startDate and endDate have formats). The description adds no meaning to the parameters, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. Agents must infer parameter purpose from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns time entries, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling list tools like fiken_list_invoices or fiken_list_projects, which also return lists.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of filtering, pagination, or prerequisites such as requiring a company context. The description is too vague to inform selection.

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

Deploy Server