Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Create Task

freeagent_create_task

Creates a new task in FreeAgent under a required project URL, with optional status, billability, billing rate, and billing period settings.

Instructions

Create a new task in FreeAgent. The project URL is required and passed as a query parameter.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_create_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the task
statusNoTask status: Active, Completed, or Hidden
projectYesProject URL to create the task under (passed as query parameter)
is_billableNoWhether the task is billable
billing_rateNoBilling rate for the task
billing_periodNoBilling period: hour, day, week, month, or year

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. Beyond restating that the project URL is a query parameter, the description adds no behavioral context: no defaults for status, billing, or billable flag, no required permissions, and no indication of what is returned on success or how failures surface.

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 short sentences with the create action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence, however, mostly restates what the schema already says about the project parameter, so it earns less than full marks.

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?

This is a moderately simple create tool with six fully-described parameters, annotations covering the safety profile, and no output schema to explain. The description is minimally adequate for the call itself, but an agent gets no help on defaults, project lookup, or expected outcomes, which a fuller definition would supply.

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 100%, so all six parameters including the two enums (status, billing_period) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about the project URL being a query parameter largely duplicates the schema's own project description and adds nothing about name, is_billable, or billing_rate. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new task in FreeAgent'), so an agent can immediately tell this creates a task rather than reading, updating, or deleting one. It does not name or differentiate from siblings such as freeagent_create_timeslip or freeagent_create_project, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only usage constraint given is that a project URL is required and passed as a query parameter, which implies a task must be attached to an existing project. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites like listing projects first, and no comparison to alternatives such as freeagent_create_timeslip.

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