solidtime-mcp

solidtime_invoice_recipients

DestructiveIdempotent

Manage Solidtime invoice recipients by listing, retrieving, creating, updating, deleting, or duplicating records through MCP; write actions require confirmation.

Instructions

Invoice recipients. action list, get, create, update, delete, duplicate. Professional feature. 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_invoice_recipients"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`email`	No
`phone`	No
`vatin`	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.
`is_archived`	No
`address_city`	No
`address_line_1`	No
`address_line_2`	No
`address_line_3`	No
`address_country`	No
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.
`address_post_code`	No
`invoice_recipient_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds two pieces beyond that: a dry-run-by-omitting-confirm workflow hint and the 'Professional feature' note, which plausibly signals a plan-gating/authorization constraint. It still does not say what delete destroys or how it interacts with existing invoices referencing a recipient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loads the resource and action list, but it is written as disconnected fragments and 'Professional feature' is unexplained filler that occupies a third of the text. The action enumeration is the only part that clearly earns its place.

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?

A 15-parameter, six-action CRUD tool with no output schema and destructive annotations needs far more than three fragments. Nothing describes what a list/get returns, how duplicate behaves, or which fields are required per action, leaving the agent to guess from the schema alone.

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?

With 15 parameters and only 13% schema description coverage, the description is the main place semantics could be supplied, yet it explains none of them. Fields like vatin, is_archived, the address_* group, and duplicate's required inputs are undocumented anywhere, and even 'writes need confirm' merely restates the confirm field's own schema description.

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 names the resource (invoice recipients) and enumerates every supported action (list, get, create, update, delete, duplicate), so an agent can tell what the tool manages. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as solidtime_invoices or solidtime_invoice_settings, which is the missing step for 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Writes need confirm' is the only conditional guidance and it applies to a parameter rather than to tool selection. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus solidtime_invoices or solidtime_invoice_settings, and no prerequisites for create/update/duplicate are given.

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

Deploy Server