Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-smallinvoice

mcp-server-smallinvoice

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

change_project_status

Updates a project's status to open, closed, billed, or pending by providing the project ID and desired status.

Instructions

Updates status for specified project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "change_project_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesproject ID
statusYesstatus to be set, on of: ['O' - open, 'C' - closed, 'B' - billed, 'P' - pending]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Updates status' is consistent but adds no extra context like authorization needs or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so description could have mentioned return value or error conditions. However, the tool is simple and the schema covers inputs adequately. Slightly lacking in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'updates status', so 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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Updates' and resource 'status for specified project', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that change statuses of other entities (e.g., change_delivery_note_status).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Implied by the resource name, but no when-not or alternative tool mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools