Platemark

Make an invoice PDF

render_invoice

Make a professional invoice PDF and get a link to it. Send the line items and rates; Platemark does the math (subtotal, discount, tax, shipping, amount paid, amount due) in exact cents and formats money for the currency. Returns the PDF link, page count and the totals it used. Costs 2 credits.

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": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "render_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Who is being billed.
`tax`	No
`from`	Yes	Who is billing.
`items`	Yes
`notes`	No
`paper`	No
`terms`	No
`accent`	No	Hex color for the title and total, like #1d4ed8.
`locale`	No	Like en-US or de-DE, for date and number formats.
`number`	No	Invoice number, like INV-1042.
`currency`	No	ISO code like USD, EUR, GBP. Default USD.
`discount`	No
`due_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD.
`due_days`	No	Days after the issue date, if no due_date. 30 means Net 30.
`shipping`	No
`po_number`	No
`issue_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`amount_paid`	No	Already paid, subtracted from the total.
`payment_instructions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it costs 2 credits, the math is done in exact cents, money is formatted per currency, and it returns the PDF link, page count and the totals used. It does not address whether repeated calls create duplicate invoices, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by input expectations, return values and cost. No filler, though the credit cost could be placed more prominently for an agent weighing call budget.

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 19-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what to supply, what is computed, what comes back, and the cost. The main gap is the large set of formatting/metadata parameters that go unmentioned, but an agent can still call it correctly from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 53%, so the description must compensate for roughly half the parameters. It does add meaning for the calculation-related fields (discount, tax, shipping, amount_paid, currency formatting) by naming the derived totals, but says nothing about paper, accent, locale, terms, notes, po_number, payment_instructions, or the due_date/due_days relationship.

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 and resource ('Make a professional invoice PDF and get a link to it') and immediately clarifies the division of labor: the caller supplies line items and rates, the service computes totals. An agent can distinguish this from render_document or render_chart without opening a schema.

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 implies when to use it (you have line items and rates and want a finished invoice PDF) but never states when to prefer a sibling like render_document, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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

All Platemark 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?