Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_create_time_entry

Destructive

Log time entries in FreshBooks with duration in seconds, start time, and optional project, client, service, note, or billable flag; user confirmation is required before submission.

Instructions

Log a time entry. Duration is in SECONDS. 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
noteNo
billableNo
durationYesLogged time in SECONDS (e.g. 3600 = 1 hour)
client_idNo
project_idNo
service_idNo
started_atYesISO 8601 start time, e.g. 2026-08-12T09:00:00Z
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.

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavior the annotations cannot: that the tool pauses for user confirmation, that on non-elicitation clients the first call performs no network write and returns a preview plus confirmToken, and that only a repeated call with that token commits. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious side-effect and side-effect-avoidance behavior an agent needs, and it is consistent with destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and the unit constraint, with the confirmation mechanics packed into one dense clause. It is efficient, though the parenthetical MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference assumes the reader has that context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The confirmation flow, the hardest part to get right, is covered well. But with eight parameters at 38% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without guidance on which ID combinations are valid, whether billable/note are optional, or what a successful commit returns.

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 only 38%, so the description carries some burden, and it does reinforce the critical duration unit and explains the confirmToken lifecycle. However, six of eight parameters (note, billable, client_id, project_id, service_id, started_at) get no explanation of their relationships, optionality, or defaults, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Log a time entry") and immediately pins the unit of the primary field (seconds). It does not name or contrast with a sibling such as freshbooks_list_time_entries, but the create action is unambiguous and there is no competing create-time-entry tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and the required fields, but the text gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the list_time_entries alternative for reading existing entries. The one piece of procedural guidance it does give (confirm first) is about flow, not tool selection.

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