Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_reject_timesheet

Destructive

Reject a submitted timesheet for a specified period, returning it to the user for changes. Provide a comment explaining the reason; confirmation is required before the rejection is applied.

Instructions

Reject a user's submitted timesheet for the given period, sending it back to the user for changes. Reviewer action — supply a comment explaining why. 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
toNoPeriod end date (YYYY-MM-DD); defaults to the period containing `from`
fromYesPeriod start date (YYYY-MM-DD) — use tempo_get_periods to find valid period boundaries
commentNoComment recorded against the approval action
accountIdYesAtlassian account id of the timesheet owner
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.
reviewerAccountIdNoAtlassian account id of the reviewer (see tempo_get_timesheet_approvals_waiting)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the confirmation prompt, the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback, and references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds procedural context about the tool's non-idempotent, token-gated behavior.

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?

Three sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and no filler. The confirmation details are dense but necessary; the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE pointer is efficient, though slightly terse.

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?

Covers purpose, effect, actor role, comment requirement, and the confirmation/token flow, which is enough for most invocation paths. No output schema exists, so return details are absent, but the tool's behavior is well-enough explained for the agent to act correctly.

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 each parameter already has a thorough description (e.g., confirmToken's usage rules). The main description only restates the confirmToken flow in general terms, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Reject'), resource ('user's submitted timesheet'), and time period, while defining the outcome ('sending it back to the user for changes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling actions like approve, submit, reopen, and recall.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly identifies the actor as a 'Reviewer action' and requires a comment explaining why, which sets expectations for when the tool is appropriate. It also explains the confirmation flow, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with approve/reopen/submit alternatives.

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