Log work time against an issue by supplying project and issue IDs, a description, and duration in minutes. Tracks time spent to support project management and reporting.
Create a new worklog for an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the issue to create worklog for | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue | |
| worklog_data | Yes | The data for creating the worklog |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does 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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't address permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation operation and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, potential constraints, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about behavioral aspects and output format, creating significant gaps in understanding.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable but not exceptional. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new worklog for an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_worklog' or 'delete_worklog', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_worklog' or 'delete_worklog'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.