solidtime-mcp

solidtime_organization_update

Idempotent

Update organization settings such as name, currency, billable rate, and employee permissions. Omit confirm to preview changes; changing billable rate can reprice past time entries.

Instructions

Update an organization. PUT /api/v1/organizations/{organization}. Changing billable_rate can reprice past entries. Omit confirm for a dry-run.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "solidtime_organization_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`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.
`currency`	No
`billable_rate`	No
`breaks_enabled`	No
`organization_id`	No	Organization UUID. Falls back to SOLIDTIME_ORGANIZATION_ID, then a single membership from GET /v1/users/me/memberships.
`employees_can_manage_tasks`	No
`employees_can_see_billable_rates`	No
`prevent_overlapping_time_entries`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real value by warning that changing billable_rate re-prices past time entries - a retroactive side effect the annotations do not convey. It does not mention permission requirements, which would be needed for a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the endpoint and the highest-risk side effect placed before the dry-run mechanics. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a nine-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the two riskiest concerns (retroactive repricing, dry-run gating) but leaves the agent guessing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, and what the response contains. Adequate to call safely, not adequate to call confidently.

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 only 22% (confirm and organization_id), so the description must carry the rest. It adds genuine meaning for billable_rate by explaining the repricing consequence, but the other seven parameters (currency, breaks_enabled, the employees_can_* flags, prevent_overlapping_time_entries) get no elaboration, and the dry-run sentence largely restates the confirm field's own schema text.

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 an organization") plus the concrete endpoint, which cleanly separates it from solidtime_organization_create, _get, and _delete. It does not enumerate what aspects of the organization are updatable, so it stops short of the sibling-differentiating detail a 5 requires.

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 practical invocation guidance for a write tool, which is more than most siblings offer. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about partial-vs-full updates across the nine parameters.

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

Deploy Server