FreeAgent MCP Server

freeagent_delete_timeslip

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a FreeAgent timeslip by ID to correct billing errors or remove duplicate time entries.

Instructions

Delete a logged timeslip from FreeAgent.

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": {
      "timeslipId": "<timeslipId>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_delete_timeslip"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeslipId`	Yes	FreeAgent timeslip ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description merely repeats the destructive nature already indicated by annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It adds no extra context such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or behavior for non-existent timeslips. With annotations present, the description provides minimal added value beyond them.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, stating exactly what the tool does. Every word 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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks any context about side effects or when deletion is allowed, which is a gap for a destructive operation. The presence of annotations partially compensates, but the description alone would not fully prepare an agent for nuanced situations.

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?

The single parameter timeslipId is fully documented in the schema with type, pattern, and description. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, so it adds no additional meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'a logged timeslip from FreeAgent', which is specific and distinguishes it from other delete tools targeting different resources (e.g., delete_bill, delete_invoice). It is not a tautology and adds the context 'logged' to clarify the subject.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose; it says nothing about conditions under which deletion is appropriate or what to do if the timeslip is referenced elsewhere.

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