tracker_worklog_createLog spent time on a Tracker issue and return the created worklog record. Supply the issue key plus duration and start time to record tracked hours.
Log spent time on a Tracker issue; returns the created worklog record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Typed request body for ``POST /issues/{key}/worklog`` (log time spent). | |
| issue_key | Yes | Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Input schema / properties / body / properties / start / descriptionPrevious value: -"Work start time, YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss±hhmm; now when omitted."New value: +"Work start time, YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss±hhmm."Input schema / properties / body / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "duration"
-]New value: +[
+ "duration",
+ "start"
+]Input schema / properties / issue_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / keyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "key",
- "body"
-]New value: +[
+ "issue_key",
+ "body"
+]v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety burden is largely covered. The description adds only that a worklog record is returned, and says nothing about permission requirements or duplicate-entry behavior for a non-idempotent write.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Nothing is repeated and nothing needs trimming.
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 non-idempotent create with a nested request body and no output schema, the description covers the bare minimum. The return value is mentioned but the routing context (why this instead of update/import) and any preconditions are absent.
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% and every field (issue_key, start, duration, comment) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, constraint, or example information beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Log spent time on a Tracker issue') and notes the returned artifact, which clearly separates it from the read/update/delete worklog siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of the top mark.
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 on when to use this tool versus tracker_worklog_update, tracker_worklog_import, or other ways of recording time. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.