lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clio_api_request

DestructiveIdempotent

Executes API requests through a project's connector account, verifying claimed effects and handling approvals for write operations.

Instructions

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

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only and destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it' and 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write,' clarifying that writes are verification-gated and may resume from an approved task. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and well-structured with a clear Args bullet list. The operation identity and routing constraint are front-loaded, and there is no filler. The naming repetition between the first line and the title is minor and does not hurt readability.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover safety and return-shape needs, but operational context is thin for a generic passthrough tool. The description does not explain the expected format inside the arguments JSON string, when to use this over clio_request or specialized Clio tools, or how the governed-connector authority affects invocation. This leaves an agent with meaningful ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It defines all 7 parameters in its Args list, giving meaningful guidance such as 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' and 'idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity.' Some descriptions remain vague (e.g., project_ref and connector_account_ref), but the coverage is substantial.

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 identifies the tool as 'Clio connector operation api_request' and states it 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' making it clear this is a governed Clio API request operation. However, it never explicitly says it is a raw/generic passthrough or explains how it differs from sibling tools like clio_request or clio_review_only.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The routing constraint is a security/scope note, not a selection guideline, and no alternative tools such as the specialized clio_* endpoints or clio_request are mentioned. An agent is left to infer when this generic operation should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server