Simpler.Asia

invoice_recurring_update

Idempotent

Update a invoice_recurring you own (optionally compare-and-set via expected_updated_at).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "invoice_recurring_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The invoice_recurring id.
`notes`	No
`title`	No
`ends_on`	No
`currency`	No
`next_due`	No
`client_id`	No
`frequency`	No
`is_active`	No
`items_json`	No
`tax_scheme`	No
`day_of_week`	No
`day_of_month`	No
`max_invoices`	No
`tax_rate_bps`	No
`total_generated`	No
`last_generated_at`	No
`expected_updated_at`	No	Optional compare-and-set guard: the updated_at you last read. Mismatch returns CONFLICT with the current value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds two genuinely new facts: an ownership restriction and an optimistic-concurrency option. However, for an 18-field update it never discloses merge semantics — whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared — which is the key behavioral question an agent has.

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?

One short sentence with the compare-and-set caveat front-loaded in parentheses; nothing is padded. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, and the grammar slip slightly detracts.

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?

Given 18 mostly undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a mutation tool, this description leaves most of what an agent needs unanswered: which fields are updatable, merge vs replace semantics, and the CONFLICT outcome only appears in the schema for one field. It is not complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 11% across 18 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. The one parameter it mentions, expected_updated_at, already carries a full schema description, so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema; frequency/day_of_week/day_of_month interactions, items_json format, and currency choice are all left unexplained.

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+resource ("Update a invoice_recurring") plus an ownership scope ("you own"), which distinguishes it from invoice_recurring_create/delete/skip. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, and the article error ("a invoice_recurring") slightly hurts polish, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase "you own" implies a permission/ownership precondition, and the parenthetical names the compare-and-set option, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use versus invoice_recurring_skip or invoice_recurring_delete, and no statement of what happens if ownership fails.

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

All Simpler.Asia 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?