lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clio_list_custom_fields

Read-onlyIdempotent

List custom fields in Clio to retrieve field definitions and metadata. This operation returns available custom fields for your connected Clio account.

Instructions

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

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: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`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.

Changed7 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: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

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"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already establish this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by explaining the routing constraint ('Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority') and explicitly requiring 'effect' to be 'read' with Spring verification. While it does not detail pagination, response format, or error behavior, the annotations cover the critical behavioral profile.

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 organized with a clear intro line and a labeled bullet list of parameters. Each parameter has a short gloss, and the routing constraint is front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be shorter if it dropped the platform tool redundancy.

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?

Given the large sibling toolset and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the essential routing and parameter context. But it lacks any statement about what category of Clio data 'custom fields' refers to, how to construct the 'arguments' JSON, or how this operation relates to other Clio operations. The description is adequate for invoking the tool but leaves the agent to infer domain semantics from the name.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates all seven parameters and gives brief meanings (e.g., 'Authenticated Project UUID', 'Stable business-action identity'). However, it does not clarify how 'arguments' (a JSON string) should be structured for this specific operation, which is particularly valuable for a connector tool. The parameter list is helpful but lacks operational detail.

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 a specific Clio connector operation ('list_custom_fields') and explicitly names the platform tool. This distinguishes it from sibling Clio list tools (e.g., clio_list_contacts, clio_list_matters) and clarifies it is a list operation. However, it does not describe what a 'custom field' is or what the returned data represents, making it clear but not fully semantic.

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?

The description states routing/authority constraints but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when listing custom fields is appropriate, what scenarios it serves, or why an agent should choose it over sibling Clio list tools. The context about 'exact project/account governed connector authority' is an operational constraint rather than usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server