freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_update_project

Destructive

Update an existing FreeAgent project by changing its name, budget, dates, status, billing rates, or IR35 setting. Use the project ID to apply only the fields you need.

Instructions

Update an existing project in FreeAgent

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_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Project name
`budget`	No	Project budget
`status`	No	Project status
`ends_on`	No	Project end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`is_ir35`	No	Whether the project is IR35
`currency`	No	Currency code
`starts_on`	No	Project start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`project_id`	Yes	The project ID
`budget_units`	No	Budget units
`hours_per_day`	No	Hours per day
`billing_period`	No	Billing period
`normal_billing_rate`	No	Normal billing rate
`uses_project_invoice_sequence`	No	Whether to use project invoice sequence

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent, local mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't explain partial-update semantics (are omitted fields preserved or cleared?), which is critical for a 13-parameter update where only project_id is required, nor does it explain why destructiveHint is set on an update.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate in form but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with a destructive hint, 13 parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin – it never clarifies partial-update behavior or what the response contains. The rich input schema compensates somewhat, but the behavioral contract of the update is left entirely unexplained.

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 every parameter including the enums for status, budget_units, and billing_period is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about how these fields interact, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing project"), which is unambiguous and matches the tool name. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling mutation tools (freeagent_create_project, freeagent_delete_project), though the verb selection is clear enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over freeagent_create_project or freeagent_delete_project, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing project_id or the project being in an editable state. The agent must infer all usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server