Kema Invoice

Send quote

send_quote

Destructive

Transition a Draft quote to Sent (the client-facing state). No certification is involved - quotes are commercial documents. French B2B validation (SIREN/VAT) applies when the tenant is French.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`quote_id`	Yes	The Draft quote UUID.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Quote UUID.
`type`	Yes	Document type: invoice, credit_note, provision or quote.
`status`	Yes	Document status: Draft, Sent, Paid, Overdue, Cancelled, Rectified, Accepted, Rejected or Expired.
`currency`	Yes	ISO 4217 currency code (EUR, USD, GBP or CHF).
`due_date`	Yes	Due date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`net_total`	Yes	Total excl. VAT, in the document currency.
`tax_total`	Yes	VAT amount, in the document currency.
`issue_date`	Yes	Issue date, YYYY-MM-DD.
`gross_total`	Yes	Total incl. VAT, in the document currency.
`valid_until`	Yes	Validity limit, YYYY-MM-DD.
`invoice_number`	Yes	Quote number (own series).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / quote_id / description

Previous value: -"The quote UUID."New value: +"The Draft quote UUID."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "currency": {
+      "description": "ISO 4217 currency code (EUR, USD, GBP or CHF).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "due_date": {
+      "description": "Due date, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "gross_total": {
+      "description": "Total incl. VAT, in the document currency.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "Quote UUID.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "invoice_number": {
+      "description": "Quote number (own series).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issue_date": {
+      "description": "Issue date, YYYY-MM-DD.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "net_total": {
+      "description": "Total excl. VAT, in the document currency.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Document status: Draft, Sent, Paid, Overdue, Cancelled, Rectified, Accepted, Rejected or Expired.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tax_total": {
+      "description": "VAT amount, in the document currency.",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "Document type: invoice, credit_note, provision or quote.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valid_until": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validity limit, YYYY-MM-DD."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "invoice_number",
+    "type",
+    "status",
+    "issue_date",
+    "due_date",
+    "valid_until",
+    "currency",
+    "net_total",
+    "tax_total",
+    "gross_total"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. It adds useful context: no certification involved, and French B2B validation. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects or reversibility beyond the state change. Given annotations cover the safety profile, the added context justifies a 3.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the validation note is concise. Every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the key aspects: the state transition, the client-facing nature, the absence of certification, and the French validation condition. It's complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without additional details.

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 100% – the quote_id parameter already has a clear description ('The Draft quote UUID.'). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action: 'Transition a Draft quote to Sent (the client-facing state).' It clearly identifies the resource (quote) and the state change, and adds a clarifying note that no certification is involved, distinguishing it from certification-related tools. It also mentions French B2B validation, which further specifies the tool's scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides some usage context (French validation applies when tenant is French) but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like convert_quote_to_invoice or reject_quote. The when-to-use is implied (when you want to send a draft quote) but no alternatives are named or excluded.

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

All Kema Invoice 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.