Skip to main content
Glama

tempo_update_worklog

Destructive

Update an existing Tempo worklog by ID, changing only the fields you specify while preserving the rest. Requires user confirmation before the change is applied.

Instructions

Update an existing Tempo worklog by id. Supply only the fields to change. Fields you omit keep their current values: the tool reads the current resource and merges your fields over it (Tempo's PUT replaces the whole resource, so an update built from only the changed fields would wipe the rest). That read runs on every call, so the preview shows the full merged body, and a resource that changes between the preview and the confirmed call is refused rather than overwritten. 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
idYesWorklog id
startDateNoWork date (YYYY-MM-DD) (default: unchanged)
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.
authorAccountIdNoAtlassian account id of the worklog author (default: unchanged)
billableSecondsNoBillable seconds
timeSpentSecondsNoTime spent in seconds (default: unchanged)
remainingEstimateSecondsNoRemaining estimate in seconds

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint, and the description adds substantial context: a preliminary read occurs, the preview shows the merged body, concurrent changes are refused, and a confirmation prompt or confirmToken flow is required. No contradiction with 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation. The later sentences earn their place by explaining merge behavior, concurrency protection, and the confirmation flow, with no filler.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation flow, concurrency guard, and merge behavior. It does not fully specify the response format, but the preview/confirmToken mechanism is described enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already documents all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the crucial global merge semantics—omitted fields keep current values because Tempo's PUT replaces the whole resource—which meaningfully changes how every parameter should be used.

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 (update) and resource (existing Tempo worklog by id), making it unambiguous versus create/delete/get/search siblings. The first sentence alone is enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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?

Gives explicit usage guidance: supply only changed fields, omitted fields keep current values, and warns about Tempo's PUT-replace semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the update-by-id framing plus merge instructions provide clear context.

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