Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

More AI - ChatGPT & Claude MCP (Fortnox)

by cloud.amore.accounting
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create an invoice payment

propose_create_invoice_payment
Idempotent

Create an invoice payment. Fortnox API POST /3/invoicepayments (https://api.fortnox.se/apidocs). Records in the bookkeeping a payment that has already been made; it does not move any money. Only prepares the change for the person to approve; this tool sends NOTHING to Fortnox, and the answer says how the approved change is sent. Body: {"InvoicePayment": {…}}; required: InvoiceNumber.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoThe request body, as Fortnox expects it: an object

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "propertyNames": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "maxLength": 200000,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"The request body, as Fortnox expects it"New value: +"The request body, as Fortnox expects it: an object"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "propertyNames": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds critical behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not move money, sends nothing to Fortnox, only prepares a change for human approval, and the response explains how the approved change is sent. These details are not contradicted by the annotations and materially inform the agent.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then efficiently covers endpoint, behavioral caveat, and request-body details. Every sentence adds useful information without filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the annotations, output schema, and single-parameter schema, the description is complete enough: it explains purpose, side effects, approval workflow, and required request shape. Return-value details can reasonably be delegated to the output schema.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema only vaguely describes the body as a Fortnox-compatible object. The description adds essential meaning by showing the wrapper shape {"InvoicePayment": {…}} and identifying InvoiceNumber as required.

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: create an invoice payment. It further clarifies that it records an already-made payment in bookkeeping and does not move money, which distinguishes it from an actual payment execution tool.

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 clear context for use: the payment has already been made and this prepares an approval. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, such as supplier invoice payments or execute_fortnox_write, so it falls short of full when/when-not routing.

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

All More AI - ChatGPT & Claude MCP (Fortnox) toolsInspect
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