Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_create_client

Create a new client or customer in FreshBooks. Includes a confirmation step that previews details and requires explicit approval before the client is added.

Instructions

Create a client (customer) in FreshBooks. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken and makes no network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNoClient's email address
fnameNoFirst name
lnameNoLast name
fieldsNoAdditional raw FreshBooks client fields, merged into the payload.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
organizationNoCompany / organization name
currency_codeNoCurrency code, e.g. "USD"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step confirmation behavior: the first call returns a preview and confirmToken, makes no network call, and only a repeat call with the token proceeds. This is valuable and goes beyond what a simple 'create' would imply. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral traits such as idempotency or duplicate handling, though that is a minor gap given the detailed confirmation disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 45 words. Front-loaded with the base purpose and then the critical confirmation behavior. No filler, though the long second sentence packs several clauses; still earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the operation's complexity. It explains the confirmation/fallback flow adequately for an agent to invoke correctly. It doesn't discuss return values, but with no output schema that's not required, and common auth/context is presumably shared across siblings.

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 the schema already describes every parameter, including an unusually detailed confirmToken description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond referencing confirmToken at a high level. Baseline 3 applies per rubric.

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 ('Create'), resource ('client (customer)'), and system ('FreshBooks'). Distinguishes from sibling create tools (create_invoice, create_expense, create_project, create_time_entry) by naming the resource type outright.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides no comparison to sibling tools or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied by the verb and resource; the confirmation prompt guidance is a call-procedure instruction, not a tool-selection guideline. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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