Conecto

Repeat a bill

purchasing_save_repeating_bill

A supplier's bill recorded again every so many weeks, months or years, like Xero's repeating bills: rent, a lease, a subscription. The supplier and lines as for purchasing_create_bill, every and unit, the start date, and an end_date or a number of times; each bill falls due payment_terms_days after its date (default the supplier's terms). Descriptions, notes and the reference may hold [Month], [Year], [Quarter] or [Week], with an offset like [Month+1]; a reference needs one, as a supplier's reference is recorded once. Conecto's worker records each bill as this key, at what purchasing_create_bill costs, and one an approval rule holds waits for that person. Change one by repeating_id: only what you pass changes; status paused stops it, active resumes it (dates it missed are skipped). Costs $0.01 per call; nothing if it fails.

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": "purchasing_save_repeating_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Your own label, e.g. "Warehouse rent".
`unit`	No
`every`	No	Default 1.
`lines`	No
`notes`	No
`start`	No	The first bill's date, today or later. Monthly and yearly bills keep to its day of the month.
`times`	No	How many bills in all.
`status`	No
`currency`	No	ISO 4217, e.g. "EUR". Default: the supplier's.
`end_date`	No	No bill after this date. "" for none.
`supplier`	No	A supplier_id, or the supplier's name.
`reference`	No	e.g. "Rent [Month] [Year]".
`repeating_id`	No	From purchasing_list_repeating_bills.
`tax_treatment`	No	reverse_charge: the supplier's invoice has no VAT because the business owes it (services from abroad, a reverse-charge trade at home); eu_goods: goods bought from another EU country. The lines' tax_rate is the rate owed; the VAT is owed and reclaimed at once.
`payment_terms_days`	No	Each bill falls due this long after its date. Default: the supplier's terms.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses per-call cost ($0.01, free on failure), that bills are recorded at the same cost as purchasing_create_bill, that an approval-rule-held bill waits on that person, and that resuming from paused skips missed dates. It also explains the non-obvious constraint that a reference must contain a [Month]/[Year] token because a supplier's reference is only recorded once.

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?

The purpose and the create-vs-update distinction are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (billing cadence, token syntax, cost, approval behavior). The prose is dense and slightly run-on, mixing pricing and approval mechanics into one paragraph, but there is no filler.

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 a 15-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scheduling, partial updates, pause/resume, cost and approval interaction. The main residual gap is that it never says what the call returns (e.g., the repeating bill id), which an agent would need for follow-up calls.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 73% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above that by explaining the reference placeholder syntax and offsets, the end_date-or-times choice, payment_terms_days defaulting to the supplier's terms, and start-date day-of-month persistence. It leaves name, currency, tax_treatment, notes and most line fields to the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource — a supplier's bill recorded on a repeating schedule — and gives concrete instantiations (rent, lease, subscription). It also distinguishes the two modes (create vs. 'change one by repeating_id') and names related siblings (purchasing_create_bill for line semantics, purchasing_list_repeating_bills for the id).

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?

'Change one by repeating_id: only what you pass changes' plus the paused/active semantics gives clear when-to-use context for both create and update paths. It does not explicitly exclude the one-off case (use purchasing_create_bill for a single bill), so the agent must infer that boundary from the cross-reference.

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

All Conecto 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?