Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Time Entry

create_time_entry

Log a new time entry for a project using a description and flexible start/end times or a duration in minutes.

Instructions

Create a new time entry with flexible time parameters

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "create_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endTimeNoEnd time in ISO 8601 format (e.g., 2024-01-10T17:00:00)
durationNoDuration in minutes (alternative to specifying start/end times)
projectIdYesThe ID of the activity to track time for
startTimeNoStart time in ISO 8601 format (e.g., 2024-01-10T09:00:00)
descriptionYesDescription of the work being done

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the rest of the burden and does almost nothing: it does not say whether the entry is returned, whether overlapping or future entries are rejected, whether authentication or specific activity ownership is required, or what happens if a referenced activity does not exist.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but the brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy — there is nothing to structure because almost nothing is said.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage beyond destructiveHint=false, the description should at minimum state what the call returns and the relationship between duration and start/end times. As written, an agent must infer all mutation semantics from the schema alone.

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%, and the schema already spells out ISO 8601 formats and that duration is an alternative to start/end times. The description's phrase 'flexible time parameters' restates that without adding format, default, validation, or mutual-exclusivity detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new time entry'), so an agent can tell this is the write-side counterpart of edit_time_entry and delete_time_entry. It stops short of naming any sibling or contrasting itself with start_timer, which also produces time records.

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?

There is no guidance about when to create an entry manually versus using start_timer/stop_timer, nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid projectId from list_activities. 'Flexible time parameters' gestures at the duration-vs-start/end choice but never states the rule for choosing between them.

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