Skip to main content
Glama

InvoiceParser Pro

Preview: Reject an invoice

preview_reject_invoice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare rejection of one invoice using an optional supported reason and note. Requires confirmation and approval capability. This returns an exact preview and a five-minute confirmation token; it does not apply the change.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "preview_reject_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description is consistent with that by confirming no change is applied. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the approval-capability prerequisite and a five-minute confirmation token expiry.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action and the no-mutation guarantee are front-loaded, and the prerequisites and return value follow in logical order.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return (exact preview plus a five-minute token) and the approval prerequisite. Minor gap: it does not say what the preview contains or how the token is consumed by the follow-up call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden, and it does signal the two optional fields ('supported reason and note'). However, it adds no detail on the reason code enum, the UUID format of invoice_id, or the notes length limit beyond what the schema already declares.

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 ('Prepare rejection of one invoice') and makes the preview/apply distinction explicit with 'it does not apply the change', separating it from reject_invoice. It never names reject_invoice directly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'Requires confirmation and approval capability' plus the token return make the preview-then-confirm workflow clear, and the note that it does not apply the change tells the agent this is the safe pre-step. It stops short of explicitly directing the agent to call reject_invoice afterward or stating when to skip the preview.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources