@lewinnovation/clockify-mcp-server

list_projects

Retrieve projects from a Clockify workspace with pagination and filters for name, archived, and billable status.

Instructions

Lists projects in a workspace (supports pagination and filters).

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`page`	No
`archived`	No
`billable`	No
`hydrated`	No
`page_size`	No	Maps to Clockify query param page-size.
`workspace_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that pagination and filters are supported, which is useful, but omits whether results are read-only, sorted, rate-limited, or how filters interact (e.g., AND logic). For a list tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise but perhaps overly terse given the missing parameter details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters at 14% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It should explain the filter parameters, pagination behavior, and return structure to be sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only 14% (only page_size has a description). The description says filters exist but does not map them to the specific parameters (name, archived, billable, hydrated), leaving six parameters undocumented in both schema and prose. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clear verb (Lists) and resource (projects) scoped to a workspace. It distinguishes itself from other list tools by naming 'projects', though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_tasks or list_time_entries beyond the resource name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The mention of pagination and filters is feature description, not usage context.

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

Deploy Server