Skip to main content
Glama
growing-pai-git

MCP Teamleader Focus

by growing-pai-git
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

teamleader_list_time_tracking

Retrieve logged time entries with filters for user, subject, and date range to track project hours.

Instructions

List logged time-tracking entries, optionally filtered by user, subject, or date range.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoFilter by specific time tracking entry IDs
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
user_idNoFilter by the user who logged the time
page_sizeNoPage size (default: 20, max: 100)
subject_idNoID of the entity time was logged against (with subject_type)
ended_afterNoISO 8601 datetime — only entries ended at/after this
ended_beforeNoISO 8601 datetime — only entries ended at/before this
subject_typeNoType of the entity time was logged against (with subject_id)
started_afterNoISO 8601 datetime — only entries started at/after this
started_beforeNoISO 8601 datetime — only entries started at/before this

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions filtering and does not disclose pagination behavior, output format, permissions, or any side effects. This is a read-like operation, but that is not stated.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. No wasted words, though it could add a bit more guidance without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on pagination, result format, or any nuances about filtering combinations, making it incomplete for confident usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'list' and resource 'time-tracking entries', with optional filters. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_time_tracking, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

The description mentions optional filters but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like teamleader_get_time_tracking, or any exclusions. With many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools