Timix.AI

update_draft_invoice

Update editable fields on a DRAFT invoice (notes, internal notes, payment terms, payment instructions, due date, purchase order number). Only valid while the invoice is still a Draft.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Notes to appear on the invoice.
`due_date`	No	Due date override (ISO 8601).
`invoice_id`	Yes	Id of the draft invoice to update.
`payment_terms`	No	Payment terms, e.g. "Net 30".
`internal_notes`	No	Internal notes (not on the printed invoice).
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice.
`payment_instructions`	No	Bank / payment instructions for the customer.
`purchase_order_number`	No	Customer PO number to reference on the invoice.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutation via 'update' and lists editable fields, but does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The draft constraint is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It efficiently conveys the essential information without any wasted words.

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?

Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain the return value, success/failure indication, or any preconditions (e.g., required permissions). The draft constraint is noted, but overall completeness is lacking for a mutation tool with this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The tool description simply lists the same fields without adding extra meaning or context beyond what is in the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'DRAFT invoice', listing specific editable fields (notes, internal notes, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform other actions on invoices (e.g., issue_invoice, void_invoice) or update other entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool is 'only valid while the invoice is still a Draft', providing a clear condition for use. While it doesn't mention alternatives for non-draft invoices, the draft constraint itself guides when to use and when not to use the tool.

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

All Timix.AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.

Resources

Need Help?