solidtime-mcp

solidtime_clients

DestructiveIdempotent

Manage client records by listing, creating, updating, or deleting them; write actions require explicit confirmation and support dry-run previews.

Instructions

Clients. action list, create, update, delete. Writes need confirm.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_clients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`page`	No
`action`	Yes
`confirm`	No	Set to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
`archived`	No
`client_id`	No
`is_archived`	No
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is partly structured. The description adds the confirm-gate requirement for writes, which is useful context, but it never says what delete removes, whether deletion is reversible, or that omitting confirm yields a dry-run preview (that detail lives only in the schema).

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 short fragments, resource-first, with zero filler. Nothing is redundant, though the terseness comes at the cost of information rather than being a model of efficiency.

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?

This is a multi-action tool spanning read and destructive write operations with 8 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description omits pagination, filtering, per-action required fields, and the meaning of the dry-run path, leaving too much for an agent to infer.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% across 8 parameters, so the description carries a heavy burden and fails to meet it. It mentions only `action` and `confirm`, both already documented in the schema, and says nothing about `name`, `page`, `archived` vs `is_archived`, `client_id`, or `organization_id` fallback behavior.

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?

"Clients" names the resource, and the enumerated actions (list, create, update, delete) clarify the operation set. However, the action list merely restates the `action` enum already in the schema, and no verb+resource phrasing distinguishes this from sibling CRUD tools beyond the noun. It is understandable but thin.

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?

"Writes need confirm" gives a concrete precondition for create/update/delete, which is real usage guidance. But there is no statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no note that `list` is safe and non-mutating, and no guidance on paging or filtering behavior.

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

Deploy Server