EARLY App MCP Server

Start Timer

start_timer

Start tracking time for a specific activity by providing its project ID, with an optional task description.

Instructions

Start tracking time for an activity

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>"
    },
    "name": "start_timer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The ID of the activity to start tracking
`description`	No	Optional description of the task you are working on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.5Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv2.0.1Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It does not say whether starting a second timer replaces or errors against an existing one, whether the call is idempotent, what happens to the currently running entry, or what the call returns.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted in other dimensions.

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 in a family containing get_active_timer, update_active_timer and stop_timer, the description omits the state interaction an agent most needs. With no output schema and only a single annotation, more behavioral detail was expected.

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 coverage is 100%, so both projectId and description are already documented in the schema, and the description adds essentially nothing beyond the word "activity" echoing projectId. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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 and resource ("Start tracking time") that an agent can map to the start_timer name and to the projectId parameter. However, it does not differentiate this from the closely related siblings stop_timer, update_active_timer, get_active_timer, or create_time_entry, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance is given beyond the bare purpose. In particular it is silent on what an agent should do if a timer is already running (check get_active_timer first? update_active_timer instead?) and on when to use this versus create_time_entry for logging time retroactively, even though those siblings make the choice non-obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server