Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solidtime-mcp

solidtime-mcp

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

solidtime_time_zones

Read-only

Retrieves available time zones from Solidtime for selecting correct time zone values when managing time entries and related resources.

Instructions

List time zones. GET /api/v1/time-zones.

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_zones"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: "GET /api/v1/time-zones" merely restates that it is a read call, and there is no disclosure of what a returned entry looks like, whether values are IANA identifiers, ordering, or caching behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the functional statement is front-loaded ahead of the endpoint hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a trivial zero-parameter lookup this is close to sufficient, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with no output schema, an agent has no idea whether it receives plain strings, objects with names and offsets, or paginated results, which is the one gap this description could have closed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter meaning to convey. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description correctly makes no false claims about inputs.

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?

"List time zones" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent immediately knows this is a read-only enumeration endpoint. No sibling differentiates against it (solidtime_countries and solidtime_currencies are distinct resources), so the lack of explicit contrast costs little, though nothing is said about scope or filtering.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of how this relates to sibling reference-list tools like countries or currencies. Usage is only implied: an agent calls it when it needs valid time zone identifiers, which is inferable but never stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools