Fiken MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Book purchase in Fiken

fiken_book_purchase

Read-onlyIdempotent

Book purchase in the user's own Fiken account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Fiken step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fiken Cloud Browser. Fiken's official API: Yes, Fiken has a documented REST API (v2) for invoices, sales, purchases, contacts, offers, credit notes and attachments (checked 14 Oct 2026), but it is a paid add-on: 99 NOK per month for a company registered in Brønnøysundregistrene.

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": "fiken_book_purchase"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Explicitly states it performs no side effects ('opens nothing by itself'), which reinforces rather than contradicts readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and tells the agent what the return value contains (screens/buttons/fields). The trailing paragraph about Fiken's REST API and its 99 NOK/month pricing is background justification rather than behavior of this tool, so it adds little and risks diluting the message.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and efficient. The third sentence is a long digression about Fiken's API availability and pricing that does not help an agent select or invoke this tool, and it arrives before the (more useful) browser-tool instruction.

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, annotated, guidance-only tool this covers what it does, what it returns, its side-effect profile, and the follow-up step. An output schema is absent, yet the description compensates by naming the return content; only the irrelevant API pricing detail is surplus.

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 parameter semantics to convey and the empty schema is fully consistent with the description's claim of returning generic guidance. Baseline of 4 applies.

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 action ('Book purchase in the user's own Fiken account') and immediately clarifies the actual deliverable: a step-by-step guide covering screens, buttons and fields, and that it 'opens nothing by itself'. That distinguishes it from the sibling fiken_* API-style tools and from the cotlet_browser_* execution tools.

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 a clear workflow: call this first to get the procedure, 'then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Fiken Cloud Browser'. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g., when to prefer the official Fiken API or a sibling fiken_create_invoice instead), but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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

All Fiken 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?