Skip to main content
Glama

clio_create_time_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a time entry for a project, recording work hours and optional approval references. Supports idempotent creation to avoid duplicates.

Instructions

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

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
effectNo
argumentsNo{}
project_idNo
project_refNo
approval_refNo
idempotency_keyNo
connector_account_refNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1
    • 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"
      +}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful context that calls are restricted to a governed project/account authority and that the claimed effect is verified by Spring. However, it doesn't disclose the side effects of creating a time entry or the approval workflow beyond naming approval_ref. There is 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, front-loaded with the operation identity and routing constraint, and organized as a clean Args list. It avoids fluff and each parameter line is short, though the opening sentence repeats the tool name and platform path.

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?

For a 7-parameter create operation with no schema descriptions, an agent cannot determine the actual time-entry payload needed, which fields are required, or when approval is necessary. The output schema may cover return values, but the missing `arguments` contract and vague parameter semantics make this incomplete. It also fails to differentiate from related Clio create operations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides one-line glosses for each parameter, but the crucial `arguments` field is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying what fields a time entry requires (e.g., matter, duration, date). Terms like 'Exact project correlation reference' remain too vague to guide correct payload construction.

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 only restates the operation name ('Clio connector operation create_time_entry') and platform tool path. It never explains what a time entry is, that this creates a billing/time-tracking record, or how it differs from siblings like clio_list_time_entries, smokeball_create_time_entry, or xero_create_time_entry. This is essentially a tautology.

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. The statement 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a routing constraint, not a selection criterion. No alternatives, exclusions, or recommended use cases are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools