Mechanically reconcile supplied purchase-order lines, invoice lines and goods receipts under expl...
Mechanically reconcile supplied purchase-order lines, invoice lines and goods receipts under explicit decimal and tolerance rules. The report identifies discrepancies and is not an approval to pay. Price: 0.05 USDC per completed bounded job on Base.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice | Yes | ||
| currency | Yes | ||
| receipts | Yes | ||
| purchase_order | Yes | ||
| tolerance_minor | No | ||
| minor_unit_digits | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the reconciliation is mechanical, governed by explicit decimal/tolerance rules, reports discrepancies, is not an approval to pay, and has a per-job price. No contradiction with the annotations exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the core purpose, immediately clarifies the report's non-approval nature, and adds a relevant pricing note. Every sentence contributes useful operational information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has six parameters, no output schema, and nested object arrays, yet the description does not disclose the report's structure, return format, or how discrepancies are represented. The description is sufficient to understand the general use case and safety profile, but an agent cannot fully anticipate what the tool returns or how 'completed bounded job' is defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It broadly maps to the main input groups ('purchase-order lines', 'invoice lines', 'goods receipts') and mentions decimal/tolerance rules, which hints at tolerance_minor and minor_unit_digits. However, it does not explain core parameters such as currency, line_id, po_line_id, sku, quantity representation, or tolerance semantics, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('reconcile') and a concrete resource set ('purchase-order lines, invoice lines and goods receipts'). It also states the outcome ('identifies discrepancies') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from an approval action ('not an approval to pay'). This is clear and unambiguous even without sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: mechanical reconciliation under explicit decimal and tolerance rules. It even sets boundaries by saying the output is a discrepancy report, not an approval to pay. However, there are no sibling tools and no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative recommendations, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
match_invoice_purchase_orderClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Computes exact overpayments across caller-supplied approved invoices, payments, and recorded cred...
Documents in, reconciled double-entry books out. Statements, invoices, receipts, matched and posted.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only one tool, there is no ambiguity or possibility of overlapping purposes. The tool's description clearly defines its specific reconciliation task.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (match_invoice_purchase_order). While there are no other tools to compare, the naming is descriptive and internally consistent.
One tool for a narrow matching task feels borderline. It's not egregiously thin given the focused purpose, but it lacks the breadth of a typical multi-tool server.
The tool covers its core function of reconciling purchase orders, invoices, and goods receipts with discrepancy reporting. Minor gaps exist around auxiliary operations like retrieving past matches or customizing rules.