Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get Time Entries

get_time_entries
Read-only

Retrieve time entries for a specified date range, optionally filtered by activity ID, to review or report tracked work.

Instructions

Get time entries for a date range

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_time_entries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endDateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today if not specified.
projectIdNoFilter entries by activity ID
startDateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today if not specified.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's only job is to add context — and it adds none. Nothing is said about pagination, result caps, timezone, ordering, or what an empty/missing date range returns, all of which matter for a list tool with two defaulted dates.

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 sentence with no filler — it is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to tight writing.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, the definition is minimally sufficient to call correctly. It is incomplete about return shape and pagination behavior, which matters since no output schema exists to carry that information.

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 startDate, endDate defaults, and projectId filtering are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the date-range concept and adds no meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (time entries) plus a scope qualifier (date range), which is enough to separate it from create/edit/delete_time_entry siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the retrieval intent 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The date-range phrasing implies usage for listing historical entries, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like get_active_timer (current entry) or generate_report (aggregation). An agent must infer the boundary itself.

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