mcp-server-smallinvoice

update_working_hours

Modify an existing working hours entry by specifying its time ID and optionally updating the date, start time, end time, or user ID.

Instructions

Updates specified working hours entry

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": {
      "time_id": "<time_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_working_hours"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`time_id`	Yes	working hours ID
`user_id`	No	id of user
`date`	No	date of working hours time span
`time_start`	No	start of working hours time span (in HH:MM format)
`time_end`	No	end of working hours time span (in HH:MM format)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive nature. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects), but also does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the action. Waste-free, though slightly terse.

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?

Despite 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives no overview of required vs. optional fields, update behavior, or success/error responses. Incomplete for a moderately complex tool.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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?

Description clearly states 'Updates specified working hours entry' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling update tools like update_effort or update_project, which share similar phrasing.

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 update vs. create or delete working hours. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server