UseHourly

Get client billing details

get_client

Read-onlyIdempotent

One client's billing details: full legal name and address as printed on invoices, and how often the client is invoiced (invoice_schedule: null = whenever the freelancer chooses).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client`	Yes	Client id or exact client name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`currency`	Yes	The currency this client's rates and invoices are in
`has_logo`	Yes
`legal_name`	Yes
`invoice_schedule`	Yes	How often this client is invoiced; null = whenever the freelancer chooses

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / invoice_schedule

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "anchor": {
+          "description": "The first day of the first two-week period (YYYY-MM-DD), or null",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "every": {
+          "description": "month = on the 1st for the month before; 2weeks = every 14 days",
+          "enum": [
+            "month",
+            "2weeks"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "every",
+        "anchor"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "How often this client is invoiced; null = whenever the freelancer chooses"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "legal_name",
-  "address",
-  "currency",
-  "has_logo"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "legal_name",
+  "address",
+  "currency",
+  "has_logo",
+  "invoice_schedule"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / currency

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The currency this client's rates and invoices are in",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "legal_name",
-  "address",
-  "has_logo"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "name",
+  "legal_name",
+  "address",
+  "currency",
+  "has_logo"
+]

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real semantic context beyond that: what the payload contains and the non-obvious null semantics for invoice_schedule (null = freelancer chooses cadence), which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

One compact sentence with zero filler; the resource is front-loaded and the clarifying parenthetical about invoice_schedule is the only elaboration, and it earns its place by removing ambiguity.

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?

For a trivial single-record read with an output schema, annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description is essentially complete. The one gap is behavior on a missing/unknown client, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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% and there is a single required parameter ('client': id or exact client name), which the schema documents fully. The description adds nothing about how to form that argument, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly conveys that this retrieves billing details for a single client, listing the concrete fields returned (legal name, address, invoice schedule). It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and never names the near siblings (list_clients, update_client, get_invoice) it must be distinguished from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The singular-client scope implies when to use it (you know which client you want) versus list_clients, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no stated alternative, and no mention of what happens if the client is not found. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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

All UseHourly tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.