Skip to main content
Glama

timecard_version

Retrieve version details for the TimeCard MCP server to verify its current build, commit hash, and branch information.

Instructions

Get TimeCard MCP version information.

Returns:

  • commit: Git commit hash (e.g., "801fd99" or "801fd99-dirty" if has uncommitted changes)

  • branch: Git branch name (e.g., "v2-batch-operations")

  • buildDate: ISO timestamp when the MCP was built

Use this to verify which version of TimeCard MCP is running.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for timecard_version which calls getVersionInfo().
    handler: async (_args, _session: TimeCardSession) => {
      return getVersionInfo();
    }
  • Helper function that reads the build version information from version.json.
    function getVersionInfo() {
      try {
        const __filename = fileURLToPath(import.meta.url);
        const __dirname = dirname(__filename);
        const versionPath = join(__dirname, '..', 'version.json');
        const versionData = readFileSync(versionPath, 'utf8');
        return JSON.parse(versionData);
      } catch {
        return {
          commit: 'unknown',
          branch: 'unknown',
          buildDate: 'unknown'
        };
      }
    }
  • Tool definition and registration for timecard_version.
    const timecardVersion: MCPTool = {
      name: 'timecard_version',
      description: `Get TimeCard MCP version information.
    
    Returns:
    - commit: Git commit hash (e.g., "801fd99" or "801fd99-dirty" if has uncommitted changes)
    - branch: Git branch name (e.g., "v2-batch-operations")
    - buildDate: ISO timestamp when the MCP was built
    
    Use this to verify which version of TimeCard MCP is running.`,
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
        required: []
      },
      handler: async (_args, _session: TimeCardSession) => {
        return getVersionInfo();
      }
    };
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool as a read-only operation that returns version metadata (commit, branch, buildDate), which is appropriate for a version-checking tool. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear breakdown of return values and a specific usage guideline. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error handling or response format nuances, but this is minor for a version-check tool.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, focusing instead on the output semantics, which is sufficient given the context.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TimeCard MCP version information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle activities, projects, summaries, timesheets, and saves. It precisely defines what information is retrieved.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to verify which version of TimeCard MCP is running.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from sibling tools that serve different purposes, such as retrieving data or saving records.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/keith-hung/timecard-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server