Skip to main content
Glama

iClips

by io.github.mcp-dir

iclips_jobs_write_update

Cria ou atualiza um job (projeto) no iClips. Ações:

  • create: o data exige titulo (até 100 caracteres), status e exatamente um entre clienteId e grupoClienteId. Opcionais: entradaDate, aprovacaoDate, conclusaoDate (AAAA-MM-DD), prioridade (1=Baixa, 2=Média, 3=Alta), servico, campanha, descricao, briefing, verba, idVerba, idFeeMensal, funcionarioId, auxiliarId, modeloIds (int[]), pecaIds (int[]) e tarefasInput (lista de {titulo, descricao, inicioDate, fimDate, prioridade, ordemExibicao}).

  • update: exige job_id; o data exige titulo e status. modeloIds, pecaIds e tarefasInput são IGNORADOS aqui, use iclips_job_pieces_write e iclips_job_tasks_write para mexer nas peças e tarefas do job. Códigos de status: 1=Proposta Comercial, 2=Concorrência, 3=Risco, 5=Aguardando Aprovação, 6=Autorizado, 7=Finalizado, 8=Cancelado, 9=Aberto pelo Cliente, 10=Pré Produção, 11=Stand By. Devolve jobId, titulo, sigla, status, totalPecas e totalTarefas.

[Flattened action: update]

Bulk support: accepts job_ids for batched execution.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
job_idNo
accountNo
job_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that modeloIds, pecaIds, and tarefasInput are ignored on update, that bulk execution is accepted via job_ids, and what the response contains (jobId, titulo, sigla, status, totalPecas, totalTarefas). There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The content is organized and front-loaded with the action, but it includes a full create-action specification in a tool flattened to update; a lot of that create detail is unrelated and adds noise. The status codes and return-field list are useful but make the description longer than necessary.

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 no inline schema descriptions, the description supplies required fields, optional fields, status enum values, return values, ignored fields, and bulk behavior. The only meaningful omissions are the encoding of the data string and the account parameter's role.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full parameter burden and does so well: it details the data payload fields, required combinations, status codes, and job_id/job_ids usage. It does not specify that data must be passed as a JSON-encoded string or explain the account parameter, which are minor gaps.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear action and resource ('Cria ou atualiza um job no iClips') and goes into detailed action semantics. However, it claims both create and update even though the tool is flattened to update and a sibling iclips_jobs_write_create exists, so the tool is not cleanly differentiated from the create sibling.

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 update path is explicit about requiring job_id, and it names the correct alternatives for pieces/tasks (iclips_job_pieces_write and iclips_job_tasks_write) plus fields that are ignored in this tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting this tool with iclips_jobs_write_create for new jobs, so it loses the top score.

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

All iClips 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are near-duplicates, such as iclips_financial_entries_get/list, iclips_pieces_get/list, iclips_pieces_write_create/update/checklist, and iclips_workflow_templates_get/list, all sharing essentially the same description. authenticate and connect also overlap on session/connection status, so an agent must rely on brittle naming conventions rather than clear semantic boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

The iClips tools mostly follow iclips_<resource>_<action>, but the server mixes noun-only names like iclips_financial_accounts and marketplace, camelCase platform names like toolkit_info and show_version, and artificial get/list flattened duplicates. The pattern is only predictable within a subset of the tool list, not across the entire server.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, the set is over-inflated for its actual scope: most are flattened get/list or write-action variants of roughly a dozen underlying iClips operations, plus six unrelated platform utilities. The domain could be cleanly served in about half this many tools without losing functionality.

Completeness2/5

Jobs and pieces have reasonable CRUD coverage, but there is no client/group or destination master lookup even though clientId is required to create a job and destination_id filters financial entries. Job pieces and tasks also lack delete operations, and financial categories are not enumerable, leaving noticeable dead ends for common workflows.

Resources