Skip to main content
Glama
Inserve-MCP

Inserve-MCP

Official
by inserveit

Tijd registreren

log_time

Records time spent on a ticket for the API key user, using activity IDs from list_lookups. Specify ticket, minutes, optional activity, description, and work date.

Instructions

Register time spent on a ticket for the user of the API key. Use list_lookups for the activity ids.

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": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>",
      "minutes": "<minutes>"
    },
    "name": "log_time"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
minutesYes
ticket_idYes
activity_idNo
descriptionNoWhat was done.
executed_atNoWhen the work was done (YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM), defaults to now.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds that the registration is attributed to the API key's user and that activity ids come from list_lookups, but says nothing about validation failures, duplicates, or how time entries affect ticket totals.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the one dependency the agent needs. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations for return behavior, yet the description doesn't state what a successful registration returns. For a five-parameter mutation tool with 40% schema coverage, the description is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about results and failure modes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 40%, so description compensation matters. It explains the implicit actor for the registration and points to list_lookups for activity_id, which is real added meaning. But it never clarifies minutes as the required duration field, ticket_id, or executed_at behavior beyond what the schema's own descriptions already say.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: register time spent on a ticket, scoped to the API key's user. It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling list_time_registrations, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The second sentence routes the agent to list_lookups for activity ids, which is genuine when-to-use guidance for one parameter. However, there is no guidance on when to log time versus viewing existing registrations, nor any stated prerequisites such as ticket existence or permissions.

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