Skip to main content
Glama

ERPNext MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Create payment entry in ERPNext

erpnext_create_payment_entry
Read-onlyIdempotent

Create payment entry in the user's own ERPNext account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in ERPNext step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ERPNext Cloud Browser. ERPNext's official API: Yes.

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": "erpnext_create_payment_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

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 and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it opens nothing by itself and only returns screens, buttons, and fields. That is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though authentication or account-selection details are not described.

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 behavior is stated early, but the lead sentence includes promotional wording about ChatGPT, Claude, or any AI agent, and the trailing 'ERPNext's official API: Yes' is vague filler. The definition is short, yet not every sentence clearly earns its place.

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, read-only guidance tool with rich annotations, the description explains the return value as step-by-step screens, buttons, and fields and describes the handoff to browser tools. It is nearly complete, with only minor ambiguity around the 'official API' note.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning because none exist, and the empty schema is sufficient.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and clarifies that it returns step-by-step ERPNext instructions rather than performing the write itself. It distinguishes this guidance tool from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools, though the opening 'Create payment entry' phrasing still risks being read as a mutating action.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use this tool for step-by-step guidance and then perform the action with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's ERPNext Cloud Browser. It provides clear usage context, but gives no when-not guidance against other ERPNext create or list tools.

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