Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_update_estimate

Update an existing estimate by adjusting line items, notes, terms, or other fields. Changes are previewed and confirmed before being applied.

Instructions

Update an existing estimate. Only the supplied fields are sent; anything omitted is left alone. 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). Supplying lines REPLACES the whole line set — include each existing line's lineid to keep it. Returns the re-fetched estimate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEstimate id
linesNoFull replacement line set. Include lineid on a line to update it in place.
notesNoNotes shown on the estimate
termsNoTerms shown on the estimate
fieldsNoAdditional raw FreshBooks estimate fields, merged into the payload — e.g. {"vis_state": 1} to soft-delete. Field names are not validated.
po_numberNo
customeridNoClient the estimate is for
create_dateNoEstimate date, YYYY-MM-DD
descriptionNoEstimate description / summary line
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.
presentationNoPresentation block — theme_primary_color, theme_font_name, image_logo_src, date_format and friends.
currency_codeNoCurrency code, e.g. "USD"
discount_valueNoDiscount percentage as a decimal string, e.g. "30"
estimate_numberNoUser-visible estimate number, e.g. "0000654"

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. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains partial update semantics, the two-step confirmation fallback (including no network call on first attempt and the confirmToken flow), line-set replacement behavior, and the return value. This is exceptional transparency for a 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is around 100 words and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence conveys distinct behavioral information, though the confirmToken explanation partially duplicates the schema's confirmToken parameter description. Still, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and well-structured.

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 14-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the key gotchas: confirmation modes, partial updates, line replacement, and return type. It does not cover error behavior or permission requirements, but given the schema richness, it is largely complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 93%, so the heavy lifting is done by the schema. However, the description adds critical cross-parameter semantics: 'Only the supplied fields are sent; anything omitted is left alone' explains the behavior of all optional parameters, and it reinforces the lines replacement rule already in the schema. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Update an existing estimate," clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_estimate, decline_estimate, or send_estimate. The additional detail about partial updates and line replacement further clarifies the tool's exact scope.

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 explains how the tool behaves (confirmation flow, partial updates) but never explicitly says when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage through its purpose, but lacks direct routing guidance such as 'use accept_estimate to change status' or 'do not use this to create estimates.'

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