Skip to main content
Glama

SalesHookAI

Update incoming invoice

updateIncomingInvoice
Idempotent

Updates a recorded supplier invoice by id, e.g. marks it paid or corrects amounts and dates.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "updateIncomingInvoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesInvoice ID
notesNoNotes
statusNoStatus: open, paid, overdue, disputed (paid sets paid_at to today unless given)
paid_atNoPayment date YYYY-MM-DD
categoryNoCategory
due_dateNoDue date YYYY-MM-DD
quote_idNoLinked quote ID
reviewedNotrue = the user checked the read-out data ("Bitte prüfen" done)
vat_rateNoVAT rate percent
net_amountNoNet amount
project_idNoLink to a project id (its cost then counts into the project margin)
vat_amountNoVAT amount
skonto_usedNoPaid with early-payment discount (Skonto)
gross_amountNoGross amount
invoice_dateNoInvoice date YYYY-MM-DD
project_nameNoProject name
discount_daysNoSkonto days from invoice date
supplier_nameNoSupplier name
invoice_numberNoInvoice number
payment_methodNoPayment method
discount_percentNoSkonto percent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety semantics are covered elsewhere. The description adds only that it operates on an existing invoice by id and that marking paid is a typical use; it does not say whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether partial updates are allowed across the 21 fields, or whether recalculation of VAT/gross happens when amounts change.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the id requirement stated immediately and no redundant wording. It is efficient, though for a 21-parameter update it leaves the reader with little beyond the headline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 21 optional parameters, no output schema and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits update semantics an agent would want: partial versus full replacement, side effects of changing amounts or status, and what is returned. Annotations carry the safety profile, which keeps this from being worse.

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%, so every parameter is documented in the schema, including the note that status 'paid' sets paid_at to today and what reviewed and project_id mean. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline and does not explain interaction between the amount fields (net/vat/gross/skonto).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Updates a recorded supplier invoice by id') plus two concrete example actions (mark paid, correct amounts/dates), which distinguishes it from the sibling createIncomingInvoice without naming it. It is clear but does not explicitly route against related siblings like fetchOverdueIncomingInvoices.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of preconditions (the invoice must already exist and be recorded), and no mention of alternatives. The word 'recorded' implies existence but gives no actionable routing rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources