Invompt

Create Invoice

create_invoice

Idempotent

create_invoice accepts exactly one: document (structured InvoML) or invoml (legacy JSON). document requires $invoml:"1.0", meta {documentType: invoice|quote|estimate|receipt|credit_note, number, issueDate, currency}, items {description, quantity, unitPrice}, and parties oneOf freeform {content:string} OR structured {name,address:{lines:[...]}}. Party forms must not mix; item.taxRate unsupported; taxCategory needs legacy. Recipients: list_clients first; never silently save. Create needs idempotencyKey. document is strict and minimal: pro forma uses documentType quote; meta.tax, discounts, payment, paymentAdvice, sections, style, items[].unit, items[].discount, and items[].taxCategory are rejected. Use invoml for full-fidelity InvoML. Create and host an Invompt invoice, quote, estimate, or pro forma. For a named recipient, search list_clients first: auto-select only one exact unique match, ask which client for multiple matches, or ask once whether to save+assign or use one-off data when none. Never silently save a client. Recipient and issuer identity are optional. issuer may be omitted; never invent issuer identity A clientId assigns the saved client and builds the recipient snapshot without private notes. Read invompt://spec/invoml/v1 first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoml`	No	InvoML (Invoice Markup Language) JSON document describing the invoice.
`clientId`	No	Company-owned saved client to assign and snapshot. Search with list_clients first.
`document`	No	Strict minimal document. Unknown fields are rejected. Use invoml for tax, discounts, payment, paymentAdvice, sections, style, item unit, item discount, or item taxCategory.
`templateId`	No	Optional template override.
`idempotencyKey`	Yes	Stable retry key. Reuse it only when retrying the same mutation.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`total`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`dueDate`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`clientId`	No
`currency`	Yes
`replayed`	Yes
`guestName`	No
`invoiceId`	Yes
`clientName`	No
`documentType`	Yes	Supported document type. A pro forma is represented as quote.
`invoiceNumber`	Yes
`guestReference`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 18, 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 by disclosing strict rejection of unsupported fields, the requirement for idempotencyKey, the rule to never invent issuer identity, the no-silent-client-save policy, and the clientId snapshot behavior. These are important behavioral traits not visible from the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, or destructive hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded, but it is presented as one long, stream-of-consciousness paragraph with repetition, such as 'never silently save' appearing twice, and a punctuation typo. Structured bullets or shorter sentences would improve scannability.

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 tool's complexity, the rich schema, the output schema, and the annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input-form selection, required fields, rejected fields, safety rules around clients and issuer identity, idempotency, and even directs the agent to the InvoML spec for full fidelity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-parameter meaning: exactly one of document or invoml must be provided, which fields are rejected, when legacy invoml is needed, and what clientId does. This meaningfully supplements the schema without replacing it.

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, resource, and scope: creates and hosts an Invompt invoice, quote, estimate, or pro forma. It clearly distinguishes the two supported input forms and differentiates the strict document form from the legacy invoml form, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without ambiguity.

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?

Provides strong workflow guidance: search list_clients first, auto-select only an exact unique match, ask on multiple or no matches, and never silently save a client. It also directs users to invoml for full fidelity versus the strict document form, though it does not explicitly compare against update_invoice or archive_invoice.

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

All Invompt 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.