Retrieve spent time entries from Redmine by user, project, issue, or date range. Filter and paginate results to track logged hours and review team time.
Spent time entries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | User id or "me" | |
| limit | No | Page size | |
| offset | No | Items to skip, use next_offset of the previous page | |
| project | No | ||
| to_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD | |
| issue_id | No | ||
| from_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no note that results are filterable by user/project/date, and no indication of ordering or empty-result behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words is not conciseness but under-specification. There is no front-loaded purpose statement to trim, so brevity here signals missing information rather than efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter filtered list tool with no output schema and no annotations describing return shape, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis for choosing filters, paging strategy, or interpreting results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 71%, below the 80% baseline where the schema fully carries the burden. The description contributes zero parameter meaning; it does not clarify the interaction of from_date/to_date, the user="me" convention, or how offset/limit are used for paging.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
"Spent time entries." is a noun fragment that restates the resource already implied by the tool name and adds no verb or scope. It does not distinguish this list tool from siblings like list_projects or search_issues; there is no statement of what is being listed or in what context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and does not mention any alternative among the available list/search siblings. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.