AICTIONBOT™ Werkbank

Check an invoice against the vendor master before paying: new bank account, unknown supplier, blocked vendor

check_invoice_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

AICTIONBOT™ Zahlungsschutz by KULIC Advisory. Matches the supplier on an invoice to the vendor master by VAT ID, IBAN and name similarity, validates the IBAN checksum, and flags a changed or unknown bank account, a blocked vendor, a dormant vendor and a first payment. Returns a verdict (stop, check, ok) with the next step. Deterministic, no AI, nothing stored. Findings in German.

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": {
      "invoice": "<invoice>",
      "vendor_master": "<vendor_master>"
    },
    "name": "check_invoice_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoice`	Yes	supplier (name), vat_id, iban, amount, currency, date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`language`	No
`vendor_master`	Yes	Vendor master rows: no (vendor number), name, vat_id, iban, country, last_payment (YYYY-MM-DD or null), blocked (bool).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses that the check is deterministic, uses no AI, stores nothing, returns a stop/check/ok verdict with a next step, and reports findings in German. That is substantial behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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 compact and front-loads the matching logic and verdict. The opening branding phrase, 'AICTIONBOT™ Zahlungsschutz by KULIC Advisory', does not help tool selection and could be removed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so with the verdict values and next step. It is nearly complete for a three-parameter tool with nested objects, though the language parameter and the vendor-master row limits are left to the schema.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning by explaining that matching uses VAT ID, IBAN and name similarity and that the IBAN checksum is validated. The language parameter and its de/en enum are not explained in the description, which leaves a small gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it matches an invoice supplier to the vendor master and flags payment-risk conditions such as a changed IBAN, blocked or dormant vendor, and first payment. It also states the output shape, a verdict of stop/check/ok, so an agent can distinguish this from a generic check_invoice or screen_sanctions call.

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?

The title and description make the usage context explicit: run this before paying an invoice. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives among the siblings such as check_invoice or screen_sanctions, but the pre-payment fraud-check context is clear.

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

All AICTIONBOT™ Werkbank 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.

Resources

Need Help?