Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Housecall Pro MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Record invoice payment

record_invoice_payment
Destructive

Record a cash or check payment on a job's invoices. No money is charged. Marks money already received as paid, as the job's Pay dialog does with Cash or Check. Housecall Pro applies it to the job's open invoices, oldest first. It can't be more than what is invoiced and unpaid; invoice the rest with create_progress_invoice first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "record_invoice_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoPayment note, e.g. the check number.
amountNoAmount received in dollars. Default: everything invoiced and unpaid on the job.
job_idYesjob_id of the invoiced job (get_job).
methodYescash or check.
receipt_emailNoEmail a receipt to this address. Default: no receipt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by stating that no money moves and that the payment is applied to open invoices oldest-first, which explains the side effects of the write. It does not warn that a repeat call would double-record a payment (a real risk given idempotentHint=false) or describe what is returned, so it stops short of full disclosure for a non-idempotent mutation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Five short sentences, all front-loaded around purpose, then the amount limit and the fallback to create_progress_invoice. The Pay-dialog analogy and the "cash or check" restatement are mildly redundant with the method enum but earn their place for a human-facing workflow.

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 five-parameter mutation with annotations but no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, defaults and limits well. The gap is the result: the agent is not told whether a payment id or applied-invoice breakdown comes back, which matters because no output schema exists to fill that in.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema alone does not spell out: the amount is capped at invoiced-and-unpaid and is applied oldest invoice first. The remaining parameters (note, receipt_email, method) are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given full coverage.

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 verb and resource ("Record a cash or check payment on a job's invoices") and immediately qualifies it with "No money is charged," so the agent knows this is bookkeeping, not a charge. It also names the sibling it depends on (create_progress_invoice) and the UI equivalent (Pay dialog with Cash or Check), which separates it from create_progress_invoice and the send/create invoice tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use context (marking money already received as paid) and an explicit exclusion ("No money is charged"), plus a routing rule to create_progress_invoice when the amount exceeds what is invoiced and unpaid. That is the exact decision an agent needs before choosing this tool over an invoicing tool.

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

All Housecall Pro MCP Server and API by Cotlet toolsInspect
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