solidtime-mcp

solidtime_charts

Read-only

Generates dashboard charts for Solidtime, including weekly project overviews, latest tasks, tracked hours, billable amounts, and team activity.

Instructions

Dashboard charts. action weekly_project_overview, latest_tasks, last_seven_days, latest_team_activity, daily_tracked_hours, total_weekly_time, total_weekly_billable_time, total_weekly_billable_amount, weekly_history.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_charts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as data freshness, timezone handling, organization scoping, or what each chart returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short and front-loads the tool domain before listing actions. It contains no filler, though repeating the schema enum values is not itself informative.

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?

For a tool with nine action modes, an optional organization_id fallback, and no output schema, the description provides too little context to choose the right action confidently. It does not explain the scope or result of any chart action beyond the action names.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%. The description repeats the action enum values but does not explain what each action means or returns, and it says nothing about organization_id beyond what the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as "Dashboard charts" and enumerates the available chart actions, so the general domain is inferable. However, it gives no explicit verb such as retrieve/get and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like solidtime_reports or solidtime_time_entries_aggregate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The action list implies the tool is for dashboard chart data, but an agent must infer the selection conditions against related reporting and aggregation tools.

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

Deploy Server