Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_create_worklog

Destructive

Log work time against a Jira issue by creating a Tempo worklog with author, date, and seconds spent. Confirms with the user before writing.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv3.2.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeSpentSeconds / minimum
      Previous value: --9007199254740991New value: +1
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive, open-world write, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the confirmation protocol, the preview-plus-confirmToken fallback, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE switch. It does not cover permissions, defaults, or side effects on timesheets/approvals.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the confirmation mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; only the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference is slightly cryptic without further context.

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?

For a 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the schema itself documents all inputs and the description supplies the critical non-obvious behavior (two-phase confirmation). Gaps remain around permissions, defaults, and return values, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 is documented in the schema, including the required attribute caveat and confirmToken semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already carries, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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'), which cleanly separates it from the update/delete/get worklog siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a worklog vs. use a sibling such as tempo_update_worklog or tempo_create_plan, nor on prerequisites (e.g. required work attributes). However, the description does give concrete procedural usage for the confirmation flow, which is clearly action-relevant.

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