Modify an existing Clockify time entry by ID, updating its start/end times, project, task, tags, or billable status.
Update (full replace) an existing time entry by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | End time (ISO 8601 UTC) | |
| start | Yes | Start time (ISO 8601 UTC) | |
| tagIds | No | Tag IDs | |
| taskId | No | Task ID | |
| entryId | Yes | Time entry ID | |
| billable | No | Whether the entry is billable | |
| projectId | No | Project ID | |
| description | No | Entry description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It notes 'full replace' which implies destructive behavior on fields not supplied, but does not state whether omitted fields are cleared, whether required fields like start must be re-supplied, or any permission or side-effect details. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and scope without any wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on required permissions, how partial updates are handled, or what happens to fields not included, leaving the agent without necessary behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of 'full replace', which implies unspecified parameters may be reset, but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (update) and resource (time entry) and clarifies that it is a full replace by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_time_entry or delete_time_entry. It could be more explicit about differentiating from partial-update alternatives, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_entry or delete_time_entry, or conditions under which a full replace is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.