Skip to main content
Glama

manage-entity

Manage Float entities including people, projects, tasks, and clients. Perform CRUD operations and specialized functions like account management and role permissions.

Instructions

Consolidated tool for managing all core Float entities (people, projects, tasks, clients, departments, roles, accounts, statuses). Supports all CRUD operations and specialized functions through a decision-tree approach. Use entity_type to specify the entity and operation to specify the action.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_typeYesThe type of entity to manage (people, projects, tasks, clients, departments, roles, accounts, statuses)
operationYesThe operation to perform (list, get, create, update, delete, or specialized operations)
statusNoFilter by status
activeNoFilter by active status (0=archived, 1=active)
pageNoPage number for pagination
per-pageNoNumber of items per page (max 200)
departmentNoFilter by department (for people)
department_idNoFilter by department ID
client_idNoFilter by client ID (for projects)
project_idNoFilter by project ID
people_idNoFilter by person ID
status_typeNoType of status
permissionNoFilter roles by permission
idNoThe entity ID (people_id, project_id, task_id, client_id, department_id, role_id, account_id, or status_id)
nameNoName of the entity
emailNoEmail address
job_titleNoJob title
default_hourly_rateNoDefault hourly rate
employee_typeNoEmployee type (1=full-time, 0=part-time)
people_type_idNoPeople type (1=employee, 2=contractor, 3=placeholder)
start_dateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format
end_dateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format
notesNoNotes or description
budgetNoBudget amount
hourly_rateNoHourly rate
colorNoColor (hex code)
non_billableNoNon-billable flag (0=billable, 1=non-billable)
tentativeNoTentative flag (0=confirmed, 1=tentative)
estimated_hoursNoEstimated hours
actual_hoursNoActual hours
priorityNoPriority level
billableNoBillable flag (0=non-billable, 1=billable)
task_typeNoTask type
repeat_stateNoRepeat state
repeat_endNoRepeat end date
parent_idNoParent department ID
positionNoPosition for ordering
is_defaultNoWhether this is the default status
descriptionNoRole description
permissionsNoRole permissions
levelNoRole level
is_system_roleNoSystem role flag (1=system, 0=custom)
timezoneNoAccount timezone
avatarNoAvatar URL
account_typeNoAccount type
accessNoAccess level
department_filter_idNoDepartment filter ID
view_rightsNoView rights
edit_rightsNoEdit rights
permissions_dataNoPermissions data for account management
default_status_idNoDefault status ID to set
permission_nameNoPermission name to check
role_permissionsNoRole permissions to update
accountsNoArray of account updates for bulk operations
formatNoResponse format - either "json" or "xml"json
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'CRUD operations and specialized functions' and a 'decision-tree approach,' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether operations are destructive (e.g., delete), require specific permissions, have rate limits, or produce paginated results. For a tool with 55 parameters and no annotations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 description is concise (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is overloaded with entity types and concepts, while the second merely restates what the schema already shows. It fails to front-load the most critical information (e.g., that this is a consolidated tool for when sibling tools are insufficient). Some sentences don't earn their place given the schema's completeness.

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 high complexity (55 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how to handle the vast parameter set, error conditions, response formats, or the decision-tree logic implied. The agent is left with inadequate guidance for correct invocation, especially compared to the many specialized sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 55 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning entity_type and operation as key parameters but doesn't explain their interaction, dependencies, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: managing core Float entities through CRUD and specialized operations via a decision-tree approach. It specifies the verb ('manage'), resource ('all core Float entities'), and mechanism ('decision-tree approach'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from many sibling tools that handle similar operations for specific entities (e.g., create-person, update-project), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this consolidated tool versus specialized ones.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions using entity_type and operation parameters but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., create-person vs. manage-entity with operation='create' and entity_type='people'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter complexity.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/asachs01/float-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server