Create a new time report by providing resource ID, date, hours, and project ID. Add optional status and description to track time entries in BoondManager.
Create a new time report
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | ||
| hours | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| resourceId | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a new time report is created, but does not mention required relationships, whether records are inserted immediately, authentication needs, possible failures, or response behavior. This is minimal coverage for a write operation.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It contains no additional structuring, examples, or clarifications that would help an agent. For a tool with six parameters, one bare sentence is not appropriate.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves all important context unexplained. An agent cannot determine expected return values, default status behavior, validation rules, or how the fields should be populated. This is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any parameter. It does not explain what resourceId, projectId, date, hours, status, or description represent beyond the raw schema. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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?
The description states a clear verb and resource: "Create a new time report". It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like boond_timereports_search and boond_timereports_get because it is the create operation. It lacks additional scope details but is not ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or differentiating context are provided. The only inference is from the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.