Timix.AI

update_frame_order

Update an Open frame order's editable fields (reference, description, caps, dates, currency, notes). Closed frame orders cannot be edited; use this only for Open frame orders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Updated free-text notes (max 2000 chars).
`currency`	No	Updated ISO 4217 currency code (e.g. USD).
`end_date`	No	Updated end date (YYYY-MM-DD, >= start_date), or omit to clear.
`reference`	Yes	New unique reference string for this (org, customer), max 100 chars.
`start_date`	No	Updated start date (YYYY-MM-DD), or omit to clear.
`description`	No	Updated description (max 500 chars).
`total_hours`	No	Updated contracted hours cap (must be > 0, or omit/null to clear).
`total_amount`	No	Updated contracted amount cap (must be > 0, or omit/null to clear).
`frame_order_id`	Yes	Id of the frame order to update.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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. It states that fields are updated, implying mutation, but does not disclose idempotency behavior, error conditions for closed orders, or partial vs full update semantics. The schema description coverage is 100%, which somewhat mitigates the gap, but behavioral traits remain underexplained.

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, well-structured sentence with a parenthetical list of fields. It is front-loaded with purpose and contains no extraneous words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core constraint (open vs closed) and lists editable fields. However, it does not explain return value, error handling, or relation to other tools like close_frame_order, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema already provide details. The tool description adds a high-level grouping of fields but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'Open frame order', and lists the editable fields (reference, description, caps, dates, currency, notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like close_frame_order by explicitly noting that closed frame orders cannot be edited.

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?

The description provides a clear usage constraint: 'use this only for Open frame orders' and indicates that closed orders cannot be edited. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for closed orders or provide additional context about when to use this tool versus other update tools.

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?