freeagent-mcp-server

Stop Timer

freeagent_stop_timer

Stops a running timer on a specified timeslip using its timeslip ID, so you can end time tracking and finalize recorded work hours.

Instructions

Stop a running timer on a timeslip.

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": {
      "timeslip_id": "<timeslip_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_stop_timer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeslip_id`	Yes	The timeslip ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the purpose: it does not say what happens to the timeslip's recorded duration, whether the row stays editable, or what error occurs if no timer is running on the given timeslip.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing is wasted, and the key action and target are stated first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Even so, it omits the post-condition (what state the timeslip ends in) and the failure mode when no timer is running, which are the details an agent would most want before calling.

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 coverage is 100% for the single timeslip_id parameter, with its own pattern and description, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The description adds no extra semantics such as where to obtain the ID or accepted formats, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

"Stop a running timer on a timeslip" gives a specific verb (stop) and resource (timer on a timeslip), which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling freeagent_start_timer. It stops short of 5 because it does not name that sibling explicitly in the description text.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word "running" implies the precondition that a timer must currently be active, so when-to-use is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. use update_timeslip to correct logged time) and no mention of the start_timer counterpart.

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

Deploy Server