Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_create_project

Destructive

Create a project in FreshBooks by providing title, client, billing model, rate/fixed price, and due date; confirmation is requested before saving.

Instructions

Create a project. 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
rateNoHourly rate as a decimal string, when project_type is hourly_rate
titleYesProject title
fieldsNoAdditional raw project fields.
due_dateNoDue date, YYYY-MM-DD
client_idNoClient this project is for
descriptionNo
fixed_priceNoFixed price as a decimal string, when project_type is fixed_price
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.
project_typeNoBilling model for the project

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the two-phase confirmation, that phase 1 issues no network call, and that only a repeat call with the token proceeds. It still omits what the preview contains and any permission requirements.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in two words, then the confirmation contract follows compactly. The only friction is the trailing "see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE" reference, which points at something the agent cannot resolve and slightly pads the sentence.

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 destructive create tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation path and the confirmToken round-trip, which is the non-obvious part of invoking it correctly. It does not describe the post-creation result or the preview contents, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE pointer is dangling, keeping it short of full completeness.

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 89%, so the schema already documents title, rate, fixed_price, project_type and confirmToken in more detail than the description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Create a project" states a specific verb and resource, and no sibling tool also creates projects, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_projects or get_project, but the verb alone separates it cleanly.

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?

The description gives strong procedural guidance on the confirmation flow (what happens on the first call vs. a repeat call with the token), but says nothing about when to create a project versus another path, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied through the mechanics rather than stated as when/when-not.

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