AroFlo MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Email invoice in AroFlo

aroflo_email_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Email invoice in the user's own AroFlo account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in AroFlo step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's AroFlo Cloud Browser. AroFlo's official API: Yes, AroFlo has a REST API (checked 23 Oct 2026), but it is off by default and an account asks AroFlo support to enable it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aroflo_email_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the important non-obvious behavior that it 'opens nothing by itself' and returns screens/buttons/fields. The REST API aside explains why browser automation is needed, though it is somewhat tangential to invocation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose and the handoff to cotlet_browser_* tools are front-loaded and clear, but the closing note about AroFlo's REST API being disabled by default is a detour that does not help an agent decide or call the tool, diluting an otherwise tight definition.

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 zero-parameter guidance-returning tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields) and what to do next. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no argument semantics to document; the 100% schema coverage baseline applies and the description correctly implies no inputs are required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Email invoice in ... AroFlo account') and immediately clarifies the surprising part: this call returns step-by-step instructions rather than performing the email. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling write tools like aroflo_approve_invoice or aroflo_create_final_invoice, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear routing guidance: call this to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the Cloud Browser. It does not state exclusions (e.g., when another invoice tool is preferable), but the use context is unambiguous.

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

All AroFlo MCP Server and API by Cotlet 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?