Retrieve a single employee time-tracking record by its ID from Holded. Use it to look up specific work hours or attendance entries when you have the record identifier.
Get a single time-tracking record by ID (Holded API v2).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeId | Yes | Time record ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It confirms a read of a single record but says nothing about read-only semantics, not-found error behavior, authentication requirements, or what the fetched record contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no waste. It is efficiently sized for such a simple tool, though the API version parenthetical adds little for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple: one required ID parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action but omits error behavior and any hint of the returned record's shape, leaving modest gaps without an output schema to fall back on.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single timeId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'by ID' framing, which matches rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single time-tracking record') and scopes it to 'by ID', which implicitly distinguishes it from the list_employee_times sibling. It does not explicitly name the alternative, so it stops short of full disambiguation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'by ID' phrasing implies retrieval of a known record, which is a usable usage signal. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives (e.g. list_employee_times for browsing) are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.