hacknplan-mcp

list_work_logs

List time entries logged on a work item by specifying its project and work item IDs.

Instructions

List the work logs (time entries) on a work item.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_work_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but it does not mention ordering, authorization requirements, pagination, or behavior when no logs exist. It adds minimal context beyond the tool's name.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core action and object efficiently.

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 list operation, the description is mostly adequate given the two-parameter schema and no output schema. However, it lacks any mention of return format or edge cases, and the absence of annotations means the agent must infer behavior from the term 'List' alone. Still, it is not severely incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'on a work item' which maps to work_item_id, but project_id is left unexplained. The schema provides names and types but no descriptions, so the agent gains little additional semantic meaning from the description.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a specific resource 'work logs (time entries)' on a work item, making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'log_work' (which creates time entries) and other list-type 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied: one uses this to retrieve time entries for a work item, but no alternative tools are referenced.

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

Deploy Server