Debitura

Create Collection Case

create_case

Destructive

Submit a debt collection case to Debitura. This is a LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ACTION: a collection partner starts recovery against the debtor, and contractual fees apply on success.

Required workflow — never skip it:

Call preview_case first and show the user the pricing, assigned partner, and any contracts that need signing.
Ask the user to explicitly confirm submission.
Only then call this tool. NEVER call it without the user's explicit confirmation in this conversation.

Submission is idempotent: the server sends a unique Idempotency-Key and safely retries transient network failures without risk of duplicate cases. A 422 response is a business rejection — read its payload (it may contain signing URLs for required contracts, or duplicate-reference details).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Optional tag for grouping test data
`date`	Yes	Invoice date (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-03-01) — required by the API
`debtor`	Yes	The debtor the claim is against
`isTest`	No	Create as test data (persisted but excluded from production metrics)
`dueDate`	No	Case due date (ISO 8601). When omitted with claimLines, Debitura uses the oldest line due date.
`comments`	No	Context for the collection partner, e.g. payment history or prior communication
`claimLines`	No	Unpaid invoices making up the claim. Use instead of amountToRecover and age buckets; Debitura derives the total and aging.
`currencyCode`	Yes	ISO 4217 currency code, e.g. "EUR"
`amountToRecover`	No	Total principal amount. Omit when sending claimLines
`claimDescription`	No	Description of the claim (what the debt is for)
`assignedUserEmail`	No	Email of the team member to own the case (use list_team_members to find valid team members)
`creditorReference`	No	RECOMMENDED: your own reference (e.g. invoice number). Helps avoid business duplicates and lets you look the case up later.
`allowPendingContracts`	No	Accept the case even if contracts (SDCA/POA) are unsigned — it waits in PendingContractSigning with signing URLs returned
`amountToRecoverOver6Months`	No	Cumulative principal more than 180 days overdue
`amountToRecoverOver12Months`	No	Cumulative principal more than 365 days overdue
`amountToRecoverOver24Months`	No	Cumulative principal more than 730 days overdue

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: idempotentHint is false, but the description states 'Submission is idempotent' and describes safe retries without risk of duplicate cases. While it provides valuable context about legal/financial action and contract signing, this annotation contradiction is a serious consistency flaw, forcing the minimum score.

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 description is slightly longer than average but every sentence is purposeful. The numbered workflow improves readability, and the idempotency and 422-handling sections are concise and clearly structured. It earns a 4 for being well-organized despite its length.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (16 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the most critical operational context: legal/financial consequences, required workflow, idempotency safety, and 422 error payload meaning. It omits the success response structure, but this is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and is very detailed, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. It references the need to show assigned partner and contracts from preview_case, which contextualizes allowPendingContracts and assignedUserEmail, but does not go beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Submit a debt collection case to Debitura' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from preview_case by framing submission as the actual legal/financial action. The title and description together unambiguously identify the tool's unique role among siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides an explicit, numbered required workflow: call preview_case first, show the user pricing/partner/contracts, get explicit confirmation, and never call without confirmation. It also explains how to handle 422 responses as business rejections, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Debitura 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action—creation, preview, listing, detail, and case-specific sub-resources (activity, contracts, messages, payments, tasks, files). The potentially overlapping task tools (list_tasks vs get_case_tasks) are explicitly cross-referenced and scoped differently.

Naming Consistency5/5

Consistent verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_. Case-specific reads use get_case_* suffix pattern, and ping is the only utility exception.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but each tool earns its place in a comprehensive case-management API; no redundant tools.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle is covered (preview, create, list, get, sub-resources, messaging, file upload). Minor gaps include no case update/withdraw and no direct resolution for task types like SelectQuoteWinner, but these are mostly platform-controlled or handled via solutionUrl.

Resources

Need Help?