solidtime-mcp

solidtime_time_entries_aggregate

Read-only

Aggregate time entries over a date range with optional grouping and sub-grouping by day, week, month, user, project, task, client, billable status, description, tag, or type.

Instructions

Aggregate time entries. GET .../time-entries/aggregate. Optional group and sub_group.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "solidtime_time_entries_aggregate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	UTC timestamp like "2000-02-22T14:58:59Z".
`type`	No
`group`	No
`start`	No	UTC timestamp like "2000-02-22T14:58:59Z".
`active`	No
`tag_ids`	No
`billable`	No
`task_ids`	No
`member_id`	No
`sub_group`	No
`client_ids`	No
`member_ids`	No
`project_ids`	No
`rounding_type`	No
`tag_match_type`	No
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.
`rounding_minutes`	No
`fill_gaps_in_time_groups`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile needs no restating and the description correctly does not. But beyond the endpoint path, it discloses nothing about what aggregation does: no explanation of how group/sub_group interact, whether ungrouped results are totals, how rounding_minutes/rounding_type apply, or the shape of the returned buckets.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing needs cutting. The problem is the opposite of verbosity: three telegraphic fragments are undersized for a tool with 18 parameters, and the raw endpoint path adds little for an agent that does not construct URLs.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 18 optional parameters, 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no explanation of the aggregation result, the description is far short of what an agent needs to invoke this correctly. The only output-adjacent detail a consumer would want here – what the aggregate buckets contain – is absent because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 description coverage is only 17% across 18 parameters, so the description carries a heavy compensating burden and largely fails it. It names only group and sub_group, leaving the enum semantics of tag_match_type, fill_gaps_in_time_groups, active/billable string-booleans, and the many *_ids filters entirely undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Aggregate time entries") plus the underlying endpoint, so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like solidtime_time_entries_aggregate_export or solidtime_time_entries_list, so an agent cannot tell from the text which one applies to a given request.

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 at all: no mention of preferring this over time_entries_list for summaries, no note that aggregate_export is the file-producing variant, and no prerequisites or constraints on combining filters. The only hint is "Optional group and sub_group," which describes a parameter rather than a usage condition.

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

Deploy Server