Fatture in Cloud MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Create invoice in Fatture in Cloud

fatture_in_cloud_create_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create invoice in the user's own Fatture in Cloud account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Fatture in Cloud step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fatture in Cloud Cloud Browser. Fatture in Cloud's official API: Yes, Fatture in Cloud has a documented REST API (v2) for issued invoices, clients, received documents, e-invoices to SDI and attachments (checked 14 Oct 2026), but it has no official MCP server.

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": "fatture_in_cloud_create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that, explicitly stating it 'opens nothing by itself' — important context that counters the 'create' verb in the name. It also states what comes back (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields). It does not mention that the output is necessarily generic since no invoice data can be supplied.

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 operational sentences are front-loaded and clear, but the trailing paragraph about Fatture in Cloud's REST API and the absence of an official MCP server does not help an agent call this tool, and the '(checked 14 Oct 2026)' claim is noise of dubious value.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value (step-by-step UI instructions) and the follow-up tool family to use. For a parameterless guidance tool this is largely sufficient; only the generic nature of the guidance is left implicit.

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 parameters and full schema coverage, so the baseline applies. The description doesn't explain why no parameters exist (i.e., that guidance is not contextualized to a specific invoice), but there are no parameter semantics to convey.

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 names the resource (invoice in Fatture in Cloud) and, crucially, discloses that the tool does not create anything itself but returns step-by-step UI instructions. This distinguishes it from the actual mutation path, which is delegated to the cotlet_browser_* siblings. The 'Create invoice' framing still creates momentary ambiguity with the real creation flow, which is why it isn't a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It gives a usable sequence: call this, receive the screens/buttons/fields, then perform it via cotlet_browser_*. What is missing is when to prefer this over the generic cotlet_app_guide sibling, and any note that the guidance cannot be tailored because the tool accepts no arguments.

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

All Fatture in Cloud 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?