PineBill

Email an invoice

send_invoice_email

Destructive

Email an existing invoice (with its PDF) to the customer. Resolve the invoice ID first with list_invoices if needed. If recipientEmails is omitted, the customer's saved email is used. The email can't be recalled once sent, so confirm the invoice and recipients with the user first.

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": {
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "send_invoice_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Optional custom message to include in the invoice email
`invoiceId`	Yes	Invoice ID to email
`customerName`	No	Customer name for confirmation display
`customerEmail`	No	Saved customer email for confirmation display
`invoiceNumber`	No	Invoice number for confirmation display
`recipientEmails`	No	Override recipient emails. Omit to use the invoice customer's saved email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding real-world consequence beyond them: the email cannot be recalled and recipients should be confirmed first, plus the fallback that a saved customer email is used when recipientEmails is omitted. It does not mention delivery failures, bounces, or whether the sender receives a copy.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisite, then default behavior, then the caution. Every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information with no padding.

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 an irreversible external-send tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: ID resolution, recipient defaulting, and confirm-before-send. It leaves out what happens on send failure or what confirmation/response is returned, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 every parameter including recipientEmails and its 'omit to use saved email' behavior is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the recipientEmails default and adds no format or limit detail (e.g., the max of 5 recipients) beyond structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Email an existing invoice ... to the customer') and adds the concrete artifact sent (the PDF), which separates it from siblings like send_estimate_email or fetch_invoice_pdf_url without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives a prerequisite workflow ('Resolve the invoice ID first with list_invoices if needed') and a confirmation step before invoking. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over send_estimate_email or when not to send at all, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All PineBill tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?