Skip to main content
Glama

Timix.AI

by ai.timix

write_off_time

Write off hours from an approved time report, removing them from the billable pool without invoicing (e.g. discounts or goodwill). Requires Finance role or above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursYesNumber of hours to write off (required, must be > 0 and ≤ remaining billable hours).
reasonYesReason for the write-off (required).
confirmNoSet true to perform the action. Omit or false returns a preview only — nothing is written.
time_report_idYesID of the approved time report to write off hours from (required).
idempotency_keyNoOptional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the write-off effect and authorization requirement. However, with no annotations, the description should detail side effects (e.g., hours become non-billable, tracked separately) and output behavior. The preview via confirm parameter is only mentioned in schema, not description.

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: first defines purpose with example, second states requirement. No redundant information. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

Covers prerequisites and high-level purpose, but lacks detail on return value, confirmation workflow, and post-write-off tracking. With no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what happens after invocation (e.g., hours removed, no invoice generated).

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 description coverage is 100%; parameters are well-documented with constraints. The description adds context (e.g., 'discounts or goodwill' for reason) but does not explain idempotency_key or confirm beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Write off hours'), the resource ('approved time report'), and the effect ('removing from billable pool without invoicing'). Examples (discounts, goodwill) help distinguish from related tools like delete_time_report.

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?

Specifies the required role ('Finance role or above') and implies use on approved time reports, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use undo_write_off or mark_time_invoiced). The when-not context is missing.

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