Xenition

Mark an invoice paid

mark_paid

Destructive

Mark a specific invoice in the user's own Xenition ledger as paid. This changes financial records, so it is a confirmed, two-step action: first call it WITHOUT confirmed to preview exactly which invoice would change, relay that to the user, and only call again with confirmed:true after they explicitly agree. When the user asks to mark ALL/EVERY/multiple unpaid invoices paid, list the affected invoices and get the user's confirmation before marking any. Returns the ledger's invoices.

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": {
      "vendor": "<vendor>"
    },
    "name": "mark_paid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`on`	No	date paid YYYY-MM-DD (default today)
`amount`	No	amount paid (default the invoice total)
`vendor`	Yes	the invoice's vendor (matched)
`confirmed`	No	set true ONLY after the user has explicitly confirmed this invoice should be marked paid; leave false/absent on the first attempt so they can review and confirm
`invoiceNumber`	No	the invoice number, if you know it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`empty`	No
`items`	Yes
`title`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that this is a 'confirmed, two-step action' requiring explicit user agreement, and spells out the preview-first workflow. It does not state idempotency or what happens on repeat calls, but the two-step confirmation protocol is a real behavioral disclosure the annotations don't provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation protocol. Two paragraphs, each earning its place. Slightly verbose on the bulk case but well-structured and not padded.

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?

Given a mutation tool with destructive annotations and an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers the critical workflow: preview, confirm, bulk handling. Missing explicit mention of reversibility or what happens when the invoice isn't found, but otherwise complete for safe invocation.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (on, amount, vendor, confirmed, invoiceNumber). The description reinforces the semantics of `confirmed` through the workflow narrative but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (mark paid) and resource (a specific invoice in the user's own Xenition ledger), scoping it to the user's ledger. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from query_ledger and add_ledger_entry.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly prescribes the when: first call without `confirmed` to preview, relay to user, then call again with `confirmed:true` after explicit agreement. Also covers the bulk case (mark ALL/EVERY invoices) with its own confirmation path. Nothing left to inference.

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

All Xenition 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.