Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nubiia-dev

MCP Holded

by nubiia-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_project_times_by_project

Lists time-tracking entries for a single Holded project with cursor pagination and optional date or approved-entry filters. Use it to review project time records page by page.

Instructions

List time-tracking entries for a single Holded project (Projects API v2). Returns a cursor-paginated flat list of entries for the given projectId. Pass the previous nextCursor as cursor to fetch the next page. The approvedOnly, startDate, and endDate filters are applied client-side on the current page. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items per cursor page (default: 50)
cursorNoCursor token from a previous response nextCursor to fetch the next page
endDateNoKeep only entries on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive) — applied client-side on the returned page
projectIdYesThe Holded project ID
startDateNoKeep only entries on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive) — applied client-side on the returned page
approvedOnlyNoKeep only approved entries (approved === 1) — applied client-side on the returned page. Default: false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv2.0.3
    • changedInput schema / properties / approvedOnly / description
      Previous value: -"Keep only approved entries (approved === 1). Default: false"New value: +"Keep only approved entries (approved === 1) — applied client-side on the returned page. Default: false"
    • addedInput schema / properties / cursor
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cursor token from a previous response nextCursor to fetch the next page",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / endDate / description
      Previous value: -"Keep only entries on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive)"New value: +"Keep only entries on or before this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive) — applied client-side on the returned page"
    • removedInput schema / properties / flatten
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Return a flat array of entries (each with projectId, projectName, and hours = duration/3600) instead of the nested structure. Default: false",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items per cursor page (default: 50)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / startDate / description
      Previous value: -"Keep only entries on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive)"New value: +"Keep only entries on or after this date (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive) — applied client-side on the returned page"
  2. Addedv1.7.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety profile and does so explicitly ('Read-only'), plus discloses the important pagination and client-side-filtering quirks that a caller must know to avoid misreading partial results. It omits auth/permission needs and rate limits, so not full marks.

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?

Four short sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by return shape, pagination mechanics, filtering caveat, and safety. Nothing redundant.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, pagination, filter semantics, and read-only status. It stops short of describing what an entry record contains, which would be the remaining gap in the absence of an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters, including cursor, limit, and the filter semantics, are already documented in the schema. The description restates the cursor chaining and client-side filter behavior without adding syntax or defaults beyond the schema, 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 (List) and resource (time-tracking entries) and narrows scope to 'a single Holded project', which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_project_times. It does not explicitly name that sibling or state the all-projects alternative, keeping it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear context (single project, Projects API v2) and an explicit operational instruction for pagination: pass the previous nextCursor as cursor. It also warns that approvedOnly/startDate/endDate filter client-side on the current page, which tells the agent results may be sparse per page. No explicit when-not or named alternative tool, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools