Fiken MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Send invoice in Fiken

fiken_send_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Send invoice 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_send_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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses what is returned (screens, buttons, fields), that it performs no action itself, and that execution requires the browser tools. It does not describe error behavior or output structure in detail, but it adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 guidance is reasonably front-loaded: it returns steps and opens nothing by itself. The paragraph about Fiken's official API, paid add-on pricing, and company registration is tangential to invoking this 0-parameter guide tool and adds noise rather than helping the agent decide or act.

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 simple 0-parameter, no-output-schema guide tool, the description adequately explains that the result is step-by-step UI instructions and that the agent must use cotlet_browser_* tools to execute them. It could be more complete by explicitly routing the agent away from sibling invoice tools when only guidance is needed.

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, and the empty schema leaves nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and there are no parameter semantics gaps to compensate for.

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 states that the tool returns step-by-step instructions for sending an invoice in Fiken and explicitly clarifies that it "opens nothing by itself," which distinguishes it from executable browser actions. However, the opening phrase "Send invoice" creates some initial ambiguity, and it does not directly compare itself with the Fiken invoice-creation sibling.

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 implied guidance by saying to get the steps here and then use cotlet_browser_* tools to perform them in the Fiken Cloud Browser. It stops short of explicitly stating when to use this over fiken_create_invoice or other Fiken siblings, and the API licensing details do not clarify tool selection.

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?