solidtime-mcp

solidtime_project_create

Create a new project in Solidtime with required name, color, billable status, and client ID. Set estimates and billable rates, or omit confirm for a dry-run preview.

Instructions

Create a project. POST .../projects. name, color, is_billable, and client_id are required. estimated_time is the project estimate in seconds. 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>",
      "is_billable": "<is_billable>",
      "client_id": "<client_id>"
    },
    "name": "solidtime_project_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`color`	Yes	Project color, for example #0f766e.
`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.
`client_id`	Yes
`is_public`	No
`is_billable`	Yes
`billable_rate`	No
`estimated_time`	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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's main added value is flagging that omitting confirm yields a dry-run — a meaningful behavioral default for a write tool. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether project names must be unique, what side effects occur (member assignment, default rates), or what the dry-run returns, and the confirm wording largely restates the schema description.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and endpoint, with no filler. The required-field sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, which is the only real inefficiency.

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 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the definition leaves important gaps: what the created project response looks like, what a dry-run preview contains, and what permissions or organization context are needed. The dry-run note is helpful but not enough to make the definition self-sufficient.

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 9 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate but does not. It merely repeats the four required field names already listed in the schema's required array and restates estimated_time's unit, while is_public, billable_rate, organization_id and client_id accept-null semantics go unexplained in either place.

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?

"Create a project" plus the concrete endpoint "POST .../projects" states a specific verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from project_update/project_delete/projects_list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but an agent can tell what it does without reading the schema.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given relative to alternatives such as solidtime_project_update or solidtime_projects_list, and no prerequisites (organization membership, client existence) are stated. The only conditional behavior mentioned is the dry-run flag, which is a calling convention rather than usage routing.

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

Deploy Server