Timix.AI

update_custom_field

Update an existing custom field definition (title, type, options, or mandatory flag) in your organization. The organization is fixed by your context. You cannot change a field's field_id or the entity it applies to. Only the properties you supply are changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No	New field data type. One of: String, Number, Date, DateTime, ListOfValues.
`title`	No	New human-readable label.
`is_mandatory`	No	Whether a value is required when creating/updating the entity.
`list_of_values`	No	New options (for a ListOfValues field; at least one non-blank option).
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.
`field_definition_id`	Yes	Id of the custom field definition to update (required). Must belong to your organization.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses partial update behavior and fixed organization, but omits return value format and potential side effects. Adequate but not comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Efficient with no fluff, but could be slightly more concise if it dropped the redundant 'organization fixed' note (already implied by context).

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?

No output schema exists, but description provides no info on return value (e.g., updated field object or success flag). For a mutation tool with multiple updateable properties, this is a notable gap.

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 already fully describes each parameter (100% coverage). The description reinforces partial update semantics ('Only the properties you supply are changed') but adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it updates an existing custom field definition, lists what properties can be changed (title, type, options, mandatory flag), and explicitly says what cannot be changed (field_id, entity). Distinguishes from create_custom_field and delete_custom_field.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Specifies organization is fixed and only supplied properties change. Implies use when modifying an existing custom field, but does not explicitly contrast with set_custom_field_value or provide when-not scenarios.

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

All Timix.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?