Wakapi MCP Server

Get Project Detail

get_project_detail

Retrieve a single Wakapi project by ID, with optional user filter, to view its coding time and related statistics.

Instructions

Retrieve a single project.

Mimics undocumented endpoint related to https://wakatime.com/developers#projects.

Requires ApiKeyAuth: Set header Authorization to your API Key encoded as Base64 and prefixed with Basic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Project ID to fetch.
`user`	No	User ID to fetch data for	current

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 7, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / id / description
```
Added value: +"Project ID to fetch."
```
- removedInput schema / properties / id / title
```
Removed value: -"Id"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / user / description
```
Added value: +"User ID to fetch data for"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / user / title
```
Removed value: -"User"
```
First observedOct 4, 2025

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral fact — the ApiKeyAuth scheme with Basic-prefixed Base64 header — but says nothing about error behavior, rate limits, or what an unknown ID yields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint provenance, then auth. Three short lines with no filler, though the auth paragraph is somewhat verbose for a header that could be one clause.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple single-resource fetch with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description covers purpose and the non-obvious auth requirement. Only failure modes and pagination-adjacent concerns are absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'id' and 'user' are already documented with types, a default, and descriptions. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a single project'), which an agent can distinguish from the plural sibling get_projects. No explicit sibling comparison, but the singular scope is clear.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_projects, get_stats, or get_user. The only usage cue is the implied singular scope, and no exclusions or prerequisites (beyond auth) are given.

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

Deploy Server