Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Edit Time Entry

edit_time_entry

Modify an existing time entry by ID to update its start time, end time, activity, or description, keeping tracked time accurate.

Instructions

Edit an existing time entry

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": {
      "timeEntryId": "<timeEntryId>"
    },
    "name": "edit_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endTimeNoNew end time in ISO 8601 format
startTimeNoNew start time in ISO 8601 format
activityIdNoNew activity ID to assign this entry to
descriptionNoNew description/note for the entry
timeEntryIdYesThe ID of the time entry to edit

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

C2.2/5.0
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 of disclosure for a mutation tool. It says nothing about whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial vs full update), what permissions are needed, or what happens to the entry's derived totals—key unknowns for a destructive-adjacent edit.

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?

The single short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so nothing is wasteful. However, its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency, leaving the definition underspecified for a five-parameter mutation.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and only a minimal annotation, the description covers almost none of what an agent needs: update semantics, side effects, and error conditions are all absent. The rich schema compensates for parameter meaning but not for behavioral or usage context.

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

Parameters2/5

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, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that—it does not explain that startTime/endTime must remain ordered, that timeEntryId is the sole required field, or that unset fields are untouched—so it falls slightly below baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb and resource ("Edit an existing time entry") but is nearly a restatement of the tool name and title, adding no scope detail. It does not distinguish this from siblings like update_active_timer or create_time_entry, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The agent is not told how this differs from update_active_timer, which also mutates timing data, so tool selection is guesswork.

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