Skip to main content
Glama
standardbeagle

Harvest MCP Server

harvest_delete_time_entry

Remove a time entry from Harvest time tracking by specifying its ID to correct records or delete logged work.

Instructions

Delete a time entry. Use about {"tool": "harvest_delete_time_entry"} for detailed usage and warnings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTime entry ID to delete

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that performs the DELETE request to the Harvest API to delete the specified time entry.
    async deleteTimeEntry(id: string) {
      return this.makeRequest(`/time_entries/${id}`, {
        method: 'DELETE',
      });
    }
  • MCP server tool execution handler case that invokes the HarvestClient deleteTimeEntry method and formats the success response.
    case 'harvest_delete_time_entry':
      await harvestClient.deleteTimeEntry(typedArgs.id as string);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `Time entry ${typedArgs.id} deleted successfully`,
          },
        ],
      };
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and input validation schema requiring 'id' parameter.
      name: 'harvest_delete_time_entry',
      description: 'Delete a time entry. Use about {"tool": "harvest_delete_time_entry"} for detailed usage and warnings.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'Time entry ID to delete' }
        },
        required: ['id']
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:69-73 (registration)
    Registration of all tools list endpoint, which includes the harvest_delete_time_entry tool schema from tools.ts.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
      return {
        tools: tools,
      };
    });
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but fails to mention critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The reference to another tool for 'detailed usage and warnings' suggests missing information, but doesn't compensate adequately.

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?

The description is brief but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is clear, but the second sentence adds clutter by referencing another tool without providing actionable guidance, reducing overall conciseness. It could be more front-loaded and eliminate the redundant reference.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions deletion but omits essential context like success/failure responses, error handling, or confirmation requirements. The reference to another tool hints at gaps, failing to provide a self-contained understanding for safe use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Time entry ID to delete'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation effectively.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a time entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'harvest_update_time_entry' or 'harvest_list_time_entries' beyond the obvious action difference, missing explicit scope or constraint distinctions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'harvest_update_time_entry' for modifications or 'harvest_list_time_entries' for viewing. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, offering only a vague reference to another tool for details.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/standardbeagle/harvest-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server