Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

tempo-api-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

tempo_update_worklog

Destructive

Update an existing Tempo worklog by ID with only the fields you want to change; omitted fields stay intact, and a preview plus confirmation prevents accidental overwrites.

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 (the update replaces the whole resource, so one 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. Changed2 schema fields changedv3.2.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / startTime / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-1]?[0-9]|2[0-3])(:[0-5][0-9])(:[0-5][0-9])$"
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeSpentSeconds / minimum
      Previous value: --9007199254740991New value: +1
  2. First observedv3.2.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description carries far more than the annotations: it discloses read-modify-write merge semantics ('one built from only the changed fields would wipe the rest'), an optimistic-concurrency refusal when the resource changes between preview and confirm, and the two-phase confirmation protocol. The destructiveHint=true annotation is not contradicted but is meaningfully elaborated with the exact conditions under which data could be lost.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, and each following sentence carries distinct load (merge behavior, concurrency guard, confirmation). The final sentence about MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is dense and slightly over-packed, but nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the things an agent must know before writing: partial-field semantics, the destructive potential, the stale-resource guard, and the confirmation handshake, including the confirmToken reuse prohibition. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that omitted fields retain current values and that the merge is a read-then-overwrite, which tells the agent it may safely pass a partial body. It does not go field-by-field, so it stays below the top band.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair — 'Update an existing Tempo worklog by id' — that is trivially separable from the sibling tempo_create_worklog and tempo_delete_worklog. The scope of the update (a single worklog addressed by id) is unambiguous.

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?

'Supply only the fields to change' is an explicit usage rule that shapes how the agent should call the tool, and the confirmation flow tells the agent what to expect on subsequent calls. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to prefer create_worklog), so it lands just below the top band.

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