Skip to main content
Glama
EARLY App MCP Server

EARLY App MCP Server

by janfincke

Update Active Timer

update_active_timer

Update the description of the currently running timer so you can correct or refine notes attached to an active time entry.

Instructions

Update the description of the currently running timer

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": {
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "update_active_timer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYesNew description/note for the active timer

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden; it usefully adds that the target is the currently running timer rather than an arbitrary entry. However it does not say whether the new value overwrites or appends, what happens if no timer is running, or whether extra permissions are needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key scoping constraint ('currently running timer') front-loaded and zero wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and a safety hint from annotations, the definition covers the essential scope. The main omission is the failure/edge behavior when no timer is active, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the field fully. The description adds no format guidance (length limits, plain text vs markup, empty-string behavior), so 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 (update) and a tightly scoped resource (the description of the currently running timer), which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_active_timer and stop_timer. It also correctly narrows the scope below what the name 'update_active_timer' might suggest, but does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you want to change the note on a running timer. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the precondition failing (no active timer), and no routing to get_active_timer to verify a timer exists first.

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