Amazing Marvin MCP

by qemqemqem

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

get_time_tracks

Retrieve time tracking data for specified tasks to monitor time allocation and productivity.

Instructions

Get time tracking data for specific tasks

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": {
      "task_ids": "<task_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_time_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_ids`	Yes
`debug`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes	Metadata about the data itself
`summary`	Yes	Human-readable insights
`debug`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`api_version`	No		current
`response_version`	No		1.0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only states 'get', implying read-only, but does not disclose return semantics, authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Output schema exists but description does not reference it, leaving the agent uninformed about what data is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence is concise but overly terse. It omits necessary details about parameters and output. Structure is minimal but not effectively front-loaded; the description sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description should provide at least a hint about the output (e.g., time logs per task) and parameter usage. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'task_ids' parameter (expected format, source) or the 'debug' parameter (effect). The agent has no semantic clues beyond parameter names, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'time tracking data for specific tasks'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like time_tracking_summary (aggregate) and get_currently_tracked_item (current track). However, it could be more specific about what kind of data (e.g., durations, logs).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Implied that it's for specific tasks, but no mention of alternatives like get_currently_tracked_item or time_tracking_summary. Lacks context for proper selection.

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