Redmine MCP Server

getTimeEntries

List Redmine time entries filtered by project, user, date, issue, or activity. Get time tracking data for reporting and analysis.

Instructions

List time entries

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pathParams": "<pathParams>",
      "queryParams": "<queryParams>"
    },
    "name": "getTimeEntries"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pathParams`	Yes
`queryParams`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.4Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List time entries' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), response format (json/xml), or the breadth of filtering available. This is minimal but not actively misleading.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is only three words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the core action but omits all useful context, earning no structural credit.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (many query parameters, nested path/query objects, no output schema, no annotations), a 3-word description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no information about accepted filters, return shape, pagination, or the required 'format' path parameter, making correct invocation unlikely.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain that 'pathParams.format' selects json vs xml, nor does it elaborate on query filter parameters like 'from', 'to', 'project_id', or 'issue_id'. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('time entries'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'getTimeEntry' (singular), 'createTimeEntry', and 'deleteTimeEntry'. It unambiguously indicates this is a collection-list operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'getTimeEntry' for a single entry or 'getTimeEntryActivities' for activity metadata. There is no mention of available filters (e.g., by project, user, date range) or when this list endpoint is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server