Skip to main content
Glama
daanno

Simplicate MCP Server

by daanno

create_service

Add new services to your Simplicate business system by specifying service name and pricing information for accurate billing and service tracking.

Instructions

Create a new service

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
priceYes

Implementation Reference

  • Core implementation of create_service: performs POST request to Simplicate API /services/service endpoint to create a new service.
    async createService(data: Partial<SimplicateService>): Promise<SimplicateService> {
      const response = await this.client.post('/services/service', data);
      return response.data;
    }
  • Registers the 'create_service' tool with MCP server, providing name, description, and input schema.
      name: 'create_service',
      description: 'Create a new service',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          name: { type: 'string' },
          price: { type: 'number' },
        },
        required: ['name', 'price'],
      },
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the SimplicateService type, used for input/output of createService.
    export interface SimplicateService {
      id: string;
      name: string;
      price: number;
      cost_price?: number;
      invoice_method?: string;
    }
  • MCP CallToolRequestSchema handler case that invokes the underlying createService method and formats response.
    case 'create_service': {
      const data = await this.simplicateService.createService(toolArgs);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(data, null, 2) }] };
  • Lists 'create_service' in HTTP MCP server's tool list for /tools endpoint.
    'get_services','get_service','create_service','get_default_services','get_tasks','get_task','create_task','update_task',
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Create a new service' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise - just three words. While this could be seen as efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it does put the essential information first with no wasted words, so it earns a relatively high score on this dimension alone.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'service' is in this domain, doesn't document the parameters, doesn't describe behavior or side effects, and provides no context about the creation operation's outcome or requirements.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter (name, price) has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - no explanation of what 'name' represents, what format 'price' should be in (currency, units, decimal precision), or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new service' clearly states the action (create) and resource (service), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_contract' or 'create_project' - it only specifies the resource type without explaining what a 'service' means in this context compared to other creatable entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling 'create_' tools (create_absence, create_contract, create_cost, etc.), there's no indication of what constitutes a 'service' versus these other entities, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints for service creation.

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/daanno/simplicate-mcp'

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