Skip to main content
Glama
leethais91

thais-skills

by leethais91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

List Redmine Time Entries

redmine_list_time_entries
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Redmine time entries using filters for project, issue, user, and date range. Get paginated results to track logged hours.

Instructions

List time entries from Redmine with optional filters.

Args:

  • project_id: Filter by project

  • issue_id: Filter by issue

  • user_id: Filter by user ID ("me" for current user)

  • from / to: Date range filter (YYYY-MM-DD)

  • limit / offset: Pagination

Returns: Table of time entries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd date (YYYY-MM-DD)
fromNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
limitNoMax results
offsetNoPagination offset
user_idNoUser ID or 'me'
issue_idNoIssue ID
project_idNoProject ID or identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context by noting that this returns a table of time entries and supports optional filters, which is useful given the absence of an output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and well organized with a short opener, an Args section, and a Returns line. It is slightly redundant with the input schema, but it remains focused and scannable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple, fully optional read-only list operation, the description covers the main behaviors: what is listed, which filters apply, pagination, and the return shape. It could add ordering or filter-combination details, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description restates each parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema, such as clarifying "me" for the current user, which the schema already includes.

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: "List time entries from Redmine" with optional filters. It clearly differs from the sibling create/update/delete time entry tools and other list tools.

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 description implies this is the right tool for querying time entries and lists all relevant filter dimensions. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is present but only implied.

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