Read saved project hours and comments for an inclusive date range and return days with entries. Use this read-only check to verify live timesheet state before or after a patch.
Read back the currently-saved project hours + comments for a date range (inclusive). Read-only. Returns { days: [{ date, hours, comment }] } for days that have any hours or comment. Use to show the live state before/after a patch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does state 'Read-only', the inclusive range semantics, and the filtering rule that only days with hours or comments are returned. It omits auth/permission needs and any error behavior for malformed ranges, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then safety ('Read-only'), then return shape, then usage. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape inline, so an agent knows what it gets back. Missing details are minor: timezone/date interpretation and behavior on invalid or reversed ranges.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it conveys 'inclusive' range semantics but never explains which parameter is the start vs end or the date format (that lives only in the schema pattern). Partial compensation for a 2-param tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('read back') and resource ('currently-saved project hours + comments') with explicit scope (inclusive date range). The 'before/after a patch' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the mutating sibling patch_day.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use to show the live state before/after a patch' gives clear context for when to call it and contrasts with the write path. It stops short of naming patch_day or stating exclusions, so it is not a full when/when-not specification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.