get_time_entryRetrieve detailed information about a specific Redmine time entry by its ID, including logged hours, date, user, and linked issue for accurate time tracking.
Get detailed information about a specific time entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_entry_id | Yes | The ID of the time entry to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the ID does not exist or is inaccessible, or whether permissions are required, all of which matter for a single-record fetch.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves little room for the routing or behavioral context an agent would want.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally complete for distinguishing it from list_time_entries.
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 100% and the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or source beyond what the schema already says.
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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('time entry') restricted to a single record, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_time_entries beyond the word 'specific', leaving the single-vs-list distinction to be inferred from the name.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_time_entries, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid time_entry_id. The phrase 'a specific time entry' hints at single-record retrieval, but no alternative is named or ruled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.