mcp-server-smallinvoice

update_effort

Update effort details including duration, date, activity, notes, invoicing status, and hourly rate. Ensure accurate time tracking and billing.

Instructions

Updates specified effort

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": {
      "effort_id": "<effort_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_effort"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`effort_id`	Yes	effort ID
`duration`	No	duration of effort
`date`	No	date
`activity_id`	No	assigned activity id
`notes`	No	notes
`is_invoiced`	No	if effort has been invoiced already
`hourly_rate`	No	hourly rate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it lacks front-loading of key information such as the required effort_id.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain the effect of updating an effort, potential side effects, or return values.

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?

All seven parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool name and description clearly state it updates an effort, but lacks specificity on which fields or scope. It is not differentiated from sibling update tools like update_project or update_contact.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_effort, delete_efforts). No prerequisites or context provided for invocation.

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

Deploy Server