Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dev.mcp

dev.mcp

by iwilldotdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

jira_add_worklog

Add a worklog entry to a Jira issue using issue key and time spent, with optional comment and start timestamp.

Instructions

Adds a worklog (POST /rest/api/3/issue/{key}/worklog).

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": {
      "issueIdOrKey": "<issueIdOrKey>",
      "timeSpent": "<timeSpent>"
    },
    "name": "jira_add_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentNo
startedNoISO-8601.
timeSpentYesE.g. 1h, 30m.
issueIdOrKeyYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Adds' and repeats the endpoint, with no mention of required permissions, time-tracking prerequisites, side effects on the issue, or response/error behavior. This gives minimal transparency beyond the mutation itself.

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?

The description is a single direct sentence with no filler, and the endpoint is useful context. It is concise, though it could have added more guidance without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations, no output schema, four parameters, and incomplete parameter coverage, the one-sentence description is not enough for an agent to understand all requirements and expected behavior. The endpoint provides context, but the definition is otherwise minimal.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description adds no parameter details. While started and timeSpent have schema descriptions, comment and issueIdOrKey remain undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adds a worklog') and includes the exact REST endpoint, making it clear what the tool does. It is easily distinguished from siblings like jira_add_comment by the entity being added.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jira_add_comment or jira_create_issue. The only implied usage is derived from the tool name, and there are no exclusions or conditions provided.

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