SyncroMSP MCP Server

tickets_update_timer

Update a timer entry on a ticket by providing the ticket ID, timer entry ID, and optional details like start time, duration, user, notes, or billing product.

Instructions

Update a timer entry on a ticket

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "timer_entry_id": "<timer_entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "tickets_update_timer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Ticket ID
`notes`	No	Timer notes
`user_id`	No	User ID
`start_at`	No	Start time (ISO 8601)
`product_id`	No	Product ID for billing
`timer_entry_id`	Yes	Timer entry ID
`duration_minutes`	No	Duration in minutes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update' which implies mutation, but omits side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens with partial updates. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 single-sentence description is brief, but it lacks details that would improve utility. Conciseness should be balanced with informativeness; here it is too minimal to be fully effective.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, validation rules, or how the update affects the timer entry. More context is needed.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema itself explains each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Update a timer entry on a ticket' clearly states the action and resource, naming both the timer entry and its association with a ticket. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tickets_add_timer or time_update_timer, which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tickets_add_timer, tickets_charge_timer, or time_update_timer. The description lacks context on prerequisites, scope, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server