get_time_entriesRetrieve existing time entries from OpenProject using optional filters for date range, project ID, or work package ID. Access recorded time log data necessary for tracking project hours and generating accurate reports.
Consulta time entries ya registradas en OpenProject, con filtros opcionales.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| projectId | No | ||
| workPackageId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Consulta' implies a read-only action and 'ya registradas' clarifies that it targets existing data, but the description does not disclose output format, pagination, default behavior when no filters are supplied, or any permission limitations.
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 short sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, mentions the source system, and notes optional filtering. There is no filler or redundant content.
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?
The description is minimally adequate for selecting and invoking a simple query tool, but it is not fully complete. It does not clarify default behavior without filters, expected return shape, or constraints around the available filters, especially given there is no output schema and no annotations.
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?
The description only says 'con filtros opcionales,' which adds little beyond the schema's required: 0. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the purpose of from/to/projectId/workPackageId or how the filters combine, but it does not.
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 tool queries/consults time entries already registered in OpenProject and supports optional filters. This is a specific verb plus resource and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely named sibling tools like list_entries.
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 intended usage is reasonably implied: use this tool when you need to read or consult existing OpenProject time entries, optionally filtered. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of sibling entry-related tools, nor does it state any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.