solidtime-mcp

solidtime_invoice_settings

Idempotent

Retrieve or update invoice settings such as seller details, tax-rate defaults, notes, footer, and e-invoicing; updates require explicit confirmation.

Instructions

Invoice settings. action get or update. Professional feature. Missing plans return a clean not-available error. 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_settings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`seller_name`	No
`seller_email`	No
`seller_phone`	No
`seller_vatin`	No
`notes_default`	No
`footer_default`	No
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.
`tax_rate_default`	No
`e_invoicing_enabled`	No
`seller_address_city`	No
`seller_address_line_1`	No
`seller_address_line_2`	No
`seller_address_line_3`	No
`seller_address_country`	No
`seller_address_post_code`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: plan gating with a graceful not-available error and the requirement that writes be confirmed. It still doesn't say whether update is a full replace or a partial patch, which matters for a 16-field write.

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 verbs, but the telegraphic fragments ('Writes need confirm') read as notes rather than a coherent instruction. Brevity here is partly under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 17-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no output schema and sparse field documentation, the description leaves too much out. An agent cannot tell what get returns, whether omitted fields are nulled on update, or what units tax_rate_default uses.

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 12%, so the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. It never mentions seller identity fields, address fields, tax_rate_default units, or e_invoicing_enabled, and it restates the action enum and confirm requirement that the schema already documents well.

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?

Names the resource (invoice settings) and the two supported verbs (get/update) via the action field, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling solidtime_invoices list tool. It stops short of describing what 'settings' actually comprise, so the scope stays a bit abstract.

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?

Adds real routing context: the tool is a Professional-plan feature and returns a clean not-available error on unsupported plans, which tells an agent when to expect failure. It gives no guidance on when to choose get versus update, nor any mention of the dry-run path that the schema supports.

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

Deploy Server