Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.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:

  1. Call preview_case first and show the user the pricing, assigned partner, and any contracts that need signing.

  2. Ask the user to explicitly confirm submission.

  3. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoOptional tag for grouping test data
dateYesInvoice date (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-03-01) — required by the API
debtorYesThe debtor the claim is against
isTestNoCreate as test data (persisted but excluded from production metrics)
dueDateNoCase due date (ISO 8601). When omitted with claimLines, Debitura uses the oldest line due date.
commentsNoContext for the collection partner, e.g. payment history or prior communication
claimLinesNoUnpaid invoices making up the claim. Use instead of amountToRecover and age buckets; Debitura derives the total and aging.
currencyCodeYesISO 4217 currency code, e.g. "EUR"
amountToRecoverNoTotal principal amount. Omit when sending claimLines
claimDescriptionNoDescription of the claim (what the debt is for)
assignedUserEmailNoEmail of the team member to own the case (use list_team_members to find valid team members)
creditorReferenceNoRECOMMENDED: your own reference (e.g. invoice number). Helps avoid business duplicates and lets you look the case up later.
allowPendingContractsNoAccept the case even if contracts (SDCA/POA) are unsigned — it waits in PendingContractSigning with signing URLs returned
amountToRecoverOver6MonthsNoCumulative principal more than 180 days overdue
amountToRecoverOver12MonthsNoCumulative principal more than 365 days overdue
amountToRecoverOver24MonthsNoCumulative 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 discloses major behavioral traits (legal/financial action, contractual fees, 422 error handling, idempotency), but it directly contradicts the annotations: the description states 'Submission is idempotent' while the idempotentHint annotation is false. Per the rubric, any contradiction yields a score of 1.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and a numbered workflow. It is thorough and each sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly compressed without losing value. The front-loading of the purpose and the explicit 'NEVER' warning make it effective.

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 complex 16-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the critical workflow, safety warnings, error handling, and idempotency semantics. It lacks return value details, but that is not required without an output schema. The idempotency contradiction slightly undermines completeness, but overall it is quite thorough.

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 already covers all 16 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('debt collection case to Debitura'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by framing it as a 'LEGAL AND FINANCIAL ACTION' that starts recovery, unlike preview_case. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly mandates a required workflow: 'Call preview_case first', 'Ask the user to explicitly confirm submission', and 'NEVER call it without the user's explicit confirmation'. This explicitly states when to use it versus the preview sibling and sets a clear precondition.

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

All mcp-server toolsInspect
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 clearly distinct resource and action: case vs. tasks vs. files vs. messages vs. payments vs. account summary. The get_case_* family is broken out by specific sub-resource (activity, contract status, messages, payments, tasks), and preview_case is explicitly distinguished from create_case. list_tasks vs. get_case_tasks are scoped differently and the descriptions call out the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern: create_, get_, list_, send_, upload_, preview_, ping. Even the standalone 'ping' is a common health-check convention and does not break the pattern. No camelCase or mixed verb styles appear.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the breadth of the domain (case lifecycle, tasks, files, messages, payments, team management) justifies each tool. The count feels reasonable rather than bloated, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: preview, create, monitor (list/get, activity, payments, messages, contract status, files, tasks), communicate, and attach files. Missing operations like update_case, delete_case, or explicit task resolution are gaps, but they are often not needed in this domain since tasks auto-resolve and the partner drives legal processes. Overall, the surface is complete enough for typical agent workflows.

Resources