Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
solidtime-mcp

solidtime-mcp

by si-essence
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

solidtime_member_update

Idempotent

Update a Solidtime member's role or billable rate, with optional dry-run preview before confirming changes that can reprice past time entries.

Instructions

Update a member role or billable rate. PUT .../members/{member}. Rate changes can reprice past entries. Omit confirm for a dry-run.

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": {
      "member_id": "<member_id>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_member_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNo
confirmNoSet to the boolean true to execute the write. Omit this field for a dry-run preview. false and the string true are rejected.
member_idYes
billable_rateNo
organization_idNoOrganization 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.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only but idempotent write with destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important side effect that rate changes can reprice past entries, which no structured field conveys. The dry-run/confirm gating is restated but reinforces how to preview safely. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false given the historical repricing, but it is a scope warning rather than a direct contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short front-loaded fragments, each carrying a distinct fact: what changes, the endpoint shape, the reprice side effect, and the dry-run gate. No filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating member tool with a confirm gate, the definition covers the action, the consequential side effect, and the safe preview path. It omits return behavior, but no output schema exists and the idempotent annotation plus schema-documented fallbacks cover most remaining needs.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description must compensate and it partly does: role, billable_rate, and the confirm/dry-run toggle are all surfaced. It says nothing about member_id or organization_id resolution, leaving those to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a member') plus the two fields it can change (role, billable rate), which distinguishes it from siblings like member_remove, member_merge, or member_make_placeholder. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than guaranteed.

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 line 'Omit confirm for a dry-run' gives a concrete operating instruction, which is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to choose this tool over the many neighboring member tools (invite_placeholder, make_placeholder, merge), and no prerequisites or exclusions 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

Other Tools