Skip to main content
Glama
advenimus

SyncroMSP MCP Server

by advenimus

time_update_timer

Change whether a ticket timer is billable by specifying its timer ID and a true/false billable flag. Use this to correct billing status for tracked time.

Instructions

Change whether a ticket timer is billable. To start, pause, or stop a timer use time_start_timer, time_pause_timer, or time_stop_timer; to change notes or duration use tickets_update_timer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesTimer ID (required)
billableYesWhether the time is billable (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / billable
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Whether the time is billable (required)",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "id"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "id",
      +  "billable"
      +]
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully narrows the mutation scope to a single field (billable), but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or what happens on success. A 3 reflects the partial disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguation routing following immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-param, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the action and the sibling disambiguation well. Only the behavioral side (permissions, reversibility, response) is left unstated, which keeps it from a 5.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, billable) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the billable field in prose, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond structured data, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (change), resource (ticket timer) and the single field it mutates (billable), and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not, so an agent can distinguish it from time_start_timer/time_pause_timer/time_stop_timer and tickets_update_timer without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'To start, pause, or stop a timer use time_start_timer, time_pause_timer, or time_stop_timer; to change notes or duration use tickets_update_timer.' This tells the agent both when to use this tool and which alternatives handle the adjacent operations.

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