solidtime-mcp

solidtime_time_entries_aggregate_export

Read-only

Export aggregated time entries to CSV, PDF, XLSX, or ODS, grouped by time period, user, project, task, client, billable status, tag, or type for reporting.

Instructions

Export aggregated time entries. GET .../time-entries/aggregate/export. format, group, sub_group, history_group, start, and end required.

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": {
      "format": "<format>",
      "group": "<group>",
      "sub_group": "<sub_group>",
      "history_group": "<history_group>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_time_entries_aggregate_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`end`	No	UTC timestamp like "2000-02-22T14:58:59Z".
`type`	No
`group`	Yes
`start`	No	UTC timestamp like "2000-02-22T14:58:59Z".
`active`	No
`format`	Yes
`tag_ids`	No
`billable`	No
`task_ids`	No
`member_id`	No
`sub_group`	Yes
`client_ids`	No
`member_ids`	No
`project_ids`	No
`history_group`	Yes
`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

C2.6/5.0

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 is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing — it does not say that the call produces a file in the requested format, whether the response is binary/base64, how large exports behave, or what happens with the pagination-free bulk nature of the call. For a 20-parameter export with no output schema, this leaves a real behavioral gap.

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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence. However, the bare endpoint path is low-value filler for an agent, and the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency given the complexity of the tool.

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?

With 20 parameters, 10 enums, 15% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry far more weight than three clauses. An agent cannot determine file-return behavior, aggregation semantics, or the role of the majority of inputs from what is written here.

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 15% and the description names just the four required fields, restating what the schema already marks required. It says nothing about the 16 optional parameters — notably the distinction between group and sub_group, the meaning of history_group, rounding_type/rounding_minutes, fill_gaps_in_time_groups, or tag_match_type — all of which are undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ("Export aggregated time entries") and even gives the underlying endpoint path, which clearly separates it from a plain time-entry list. It only implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling solidtime_time_entries_export, which it never names or contrasts against.

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: nothing says when to choose aggregated export over solidtime_time_entries_export or solidtime_reports, nor any prerequisites such as organization context or permissions. The only guidance is a restatement of the four required fields, which the schema already enforces.

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

Deploy Server