Skip to main content
Glama

Timix.AI

by ai.timix

update_org_settings

Update core settings for your organization: name, country, default_time_zone, base_currency, first_day_of_month (1-28), auto_close_month_after_days, and the budget alert thresholds (budget_warning_threshold_percent must be less than budget_critical_threshold_percent). The organization is fixed by your context - never pass an organization id. Only the fields you provide are changed; everything else is left as-is.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOrganization display name.
countryNoOrganization country.
base_currencyNoBase ISO 4217 currency code (e.g. USD, EUR).
idempotency_keyNoOptional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.
default_time_zoneNoDefault IANA/Windows time zone id (e.g. America/New_York).
first_day_of_monthNoDay the billing month starts (1-28).
auto_close_month_after_daysNoAuto-close a month this many days after it ends (0 = never).
budget_warning_threshold_percentNoUtilization % at which a project is flagged At-Risk (must be less than the critical threshold).
budget_critical_threshold_percentNoUtilization % at which a project is flagged Over-Budget (must be greater than the warning threshold).

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the update operation, mentions the constraint on budget thresholds, and implies idempotency via the idempotency_key parameter. It does not mention auth or rate limits, which is acceptable for an org settings tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and all information is relevant and useful.

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?

Given no output schema and 9 parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: partial update, fixed org context, and the budget threshold constraint. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but these are not critical for a simple update tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds value by listing the key parameters, noting the constraint that budget_warning_threshold_percent must be less than budget_critical_threshold_percent, and clarifying that organization ID should not be passed.

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' and the resource 'core settings for your organization', listing the specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on other entities like projects, customers, or time reports.

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 explicitly states that the organization is fixed by context and not to pass an organization ID, and that only provided fields are changed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear given the sibling tools cover different operations.

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

All Timix.AI toolsInspect
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