Retrieve a single time-tracking entry from Holded by specifying a project ID and time-tracking ID. Use it to look up logged hours or billable time details for a specific project.
Get a single time-tracking entry by project ID and time-tracking ID (Projects API v2). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The Holded project ID | |
| timeTrackingId | Yes | The time-tracking entry ID (timeId) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Input schema / properties / timeTrackingId / descriptionPrevious value: -"The time-tracking entry ID (the entry timeId)"New value: +"The time-tracking entry ID (timeId)"v1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose 'Read-only,' which usefully signals no side effects, but it says nothing about error behavior when an ID is missing or what the returned entry 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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and scope with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a simple two-parameter, fully-documented getter with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and states its read-only nature. Only the return shape and not-found behavior are left unspecified, which is minor here.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema. The description restates the parameter intent (project ID, time-tracking ID) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description names a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single time-tracking entry) scoped to project and time-tracking IDs, making it clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_project_times. The word 'single' effectively separates it from list-style operations.
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?
Usage is implied by 'single ... by project ID and time-tracking ID' — retrieve one known entry. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus list_project_times or list_project_times_by_project, leaving the agent to infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.