Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

update_time_entry

Update a time entry's details in Rocket Matter using its ID and a JSON payload of fields.

Instructions

Update a time entry by ID (GUID).

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": {
      "time_entry_id": "<time_entry_id>",
      "fields_json": "<fields_json>"
    },
    "name": "update_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fields_jsonYes
time_entry_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions, reversibility, or effects on other records. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to add context.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool is an update operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential context: how to construct 'fields_json', what the response looks like, and any side effects. It is too minimal to be fully useful.

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%. The description adds nothing about the 'fields_json' parameter beyond its name; it does not explain its format or content requirements. The mention of 'ID (GUID)' provides some meaning for 'time_entry_id' but not enough.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('a time entry') with identifier type ('by ID (GUID)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_time_entry and delete_time_entry, but lacks detail on what fields can be updated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_time_entry or update_expense). No context on prerequisites or limitations.

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