Stop a running Redmine issue timer and discard elapsed time without logging any time entry. Use it when a timer was started by mistake or should not be recorded.
Cancel the running timer for an issue WITHOUT logging any time to Redmine. The elapsed time is discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | The Redmine issue ID whose timer to cancel |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical side effect: elapsed time is discarded and nothing is written to Redmine. It does not cover what happens if no timer is running, whether the cancel is reversible, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps for a mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, with the no-logging consequence front-loaded in the first. Zero filler; every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking.
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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the parameter, and the key destructive effect (time discarded). Edge cases like canceling when no timer is active are unaddressed, which keeps it just short of complete.
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 100% and the single issue_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.
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 and resource ('Cancel the running timer for an issue') with the crucial qualifier that no time is logged. This functionally separates it from stop_timer, though the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the pairing rather than be told it.
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 'WITHOUT logging any time ... elapsed time is discarded' framing strongly implies when to choose this over a stop-and-log path, but it never explicitly says 'use stop_timer instead if you want to record the time.' Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.