invoice.record_paymentUse this when the user says a client paid by check, bank transfer, cash, or otherwise outside the Stripe payment link. Marks the invoice paid. Stripe payments are recorded automatically; do not use this for them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| method | No | e.g. "bank transfer", "check #1042" | |
| paid_on | No | Default: today | |
| invoice_id | Yes | Invoice id or number |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key behavioral effect: 'Marks the invoice paid.' Additionally, it explains that Stripe payments are automatically recorded, which is contextualizing and beyond the annotations. The annotations already cover idempotency, destructiveness, and read-only status, so the description adds meaningful behavior context without repeating structured metadata.
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 very compact: three short sentences. Each sentence earns its place—usage, behavior, and exclusion. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance and contains no redundant or filler content.
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?
For a 4-parameter, 1-required, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers the purpose, the when and when-not to use it, and the core visible effect. The schema handles parameter semantics, and the annotations handle side-effect metadata. No essential information needed to call this tool correctly is missing.
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?
Input schema descriptions cover all 4 parameters (75% coverage) with clear examples for method and default for paid_on. The description does not add new parameter details, but it does reinforce that the method is for non-Stripe manual payments. Given high schema coverage, this is adequate and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Record a manual payment' and that it 'Marks the invoice paid', with explicit triggers (check, bank transfer, cash, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the automatic Stripe payment flow, so an agent can unambiguously tell it apart from invoice.send or other invoice tools without opening the schema.
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 gives explicit when-to-use ('when the user says a client pays by check, bank transfer, cash, or otherwise outside the Stripe payment link') and an explicit when-not-to-use ('Stripe payments are recorded automatically; do not use this for them.'). This leaves no ambiguity and matches the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.