lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clio_action_plan_submit

DestructiveIdempotent

Submit a Clio action plan through the project-scoped connector, using idempotency keys and approval references to ensure governed, traceable execution.

Instructions

Clio connector operation action_plan_submit (platform tool clio.action_plan_submit).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	No
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true). The description adds little beyond stating that `effect` is verified by Spring and that `approval_ref` is needed when resuming a write. It does not disclose what side effects the submit operation triggers, whether it is irreversible, or how destructive behavior manifests.

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 argument list is organized and each line adds some value, but the opening sentence is redundant with the tool name and takes up space. The routing note is useful, and overall length is acceptable, though not every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fails to explain the core operation semantics: what an 'action plan' is, what submitting it does, or what an agent should pass in the `arguments` JSON. While parameter meanings and routing are covered, the lack of operational context makes the tool difficult to invoke correctly even with an output schema present.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by giving a one-line meaning to each parameter, such as 'Stable business-action identity' for idempotency_key and 'Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write' for approval_ref. However, the most important parameter, `arguments`, is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no detail on expected structure or content, leaving a significant gap.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name as 'Clio connector operation `action_plan_submit`' without explaining what submitting an action plan actually accomplishes. It adds routing context but no concrete outcome, so it does not clearly differentiate from sibling operations like clio_action_plan_create or clio_api_request.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') is a requirement, not a usage recommendation, and no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios is present.

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

Deploy Server