list_ticket_time_entriesRetrieve time entries logged by agents on a specific ticket. Use pagination to review tracked work and effort.
List time entries (time tracked by agents) on a ticket.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, starting at 1 | |
| per_page | No | Records per page (max 100) | |
| ticket_id | Yes | Ticket ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain context that entries represent agent-tracked time on a ticket, but says nothing about ordering, totals, or whether all entries are returned at once.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably too terse given available room, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema and complete parameter descriptions exist, so the core call is unambiguous. Still, for a paginated per-ticket listing among several time-entry siblings, the description could note pagination behavior or how it differs from the single-entry viewer; the minimum viable bar is met but not exceeded.
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%, so ticket_id, page, and per_page are already fully documented. The description only reinforces that the listing is scoped to a single ticket; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 (list time entries) and clarifies what a time entry is (time tracked by agents) on a ticket. It is clear on its own, but does not contrast itself with the sibling view_ticket_time_entry, so an agent must infer the singular-vs-list distinction from the name.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this versus view_ticket_time_entry or how it relates to the create/update/delete time-entry siblings. The only implied usage is 'you have a ticket_id and want its entries'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.