Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_create_worklog

Destructive

Create a Tempo worklog to log time spent on a Jira issue, with user confirmation before saving. Provide author, issue, date, and duration to record the entry.

Instructions

Create a new Tempo worklog. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesJira issue id to log time against
startDateYesWork date (YYYY-MM-DD)
startTimeNoStart time (HH:mm:ss)
attributesNoTempo work attribute values, e.g. [{"key":"_Account_","value":"20265520"}]. REQUIRED when the Tempo instance marks a work attribute (such as Account) as required — otherwise the write fails with HTTP 400. Discover configured attributes with tempo_get_work_attributes.
descriptionNoDescription of work done
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
authorAccountIdYesAtlassian account id of the worklog author
billableSecondsNoBillable seconds (defaults to timeSpentSeconds)
timeSpentSecondsYesTime spent in seconds (e.g. 3600 = 1 hour)
remainingEstimateSecondsNoRemaining estimate in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Explicitly discloses a non-obvious two-phase confirmation behavior: a confirmation prompt where supported, otherwise a first call returns preview and confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the confirmation behavior follows immediately. The second sentence is dense but each clause earns its place by conveying a distinct part of the flow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tricky confirmation flow is fully covered and all parameters are documented in the schema. However, since there is no output schema, it would help to state what a successful final call returns; the description also omits guidance on when to choose this over sibling worklog tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description, including a thorough confirmToken explanation and the HTTP 400 warning for required attributes. The main description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond referencing the confirmation flow.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Tempo worklog.' The word 'new' clearly distinguishes it from update/delete siblings, and the description leaves no ambiguity about the operation being performed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The schema's attributes parameter wisely points to tempo_get_work_attributes for required-attribute discovery, but the main description does not explain how this tool relates to tempo_update_worklog or other worklog tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools