Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Activity

create_activity

Create new activities or projects in EARLY with a name and optional color, billable status, client association, and description for time tracking.

Instructions

Create a new activity (project)

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the new activity/project
colorNoColor code for the activity
billableNoWhether the activity is billable
clientIdNoClient ID to associate with the activity
descriptionNoDescription of the activity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.5
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv2.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries nearly the full burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about permissions required, behavior on duplicate names, whether a new activity ID is returned, or how the created activity interacts with time entries.

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 front-loaded phrase with no filler, and the '(project)' clarification is placed immediately after the resource. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it borders on under-specification.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Incorrect placeholder.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the required 'name'. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation details (e.g., color format) beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 (Create) and resource (activity), and the parenthetical '(project)' disambiguates the domain term. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_time_entry or update_activity, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 create a new activity versus calling list_activities first, update_activity, or archive_activity. No prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., whether clientId must reference an existing client, or whether names must be unique).

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