Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Invoice2go MCP Server and API by Cotlet

by dev.cotlet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create invoice in Invoice2go

invoice2go_create_invoice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Create invoice in the user's own Invoice2go account from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent. Returns how to do it in Invoice2go step by step (screens, buttons, fields) and opens nothing by itself; then do it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Invoice2go Cloud Browser. Invoice2go's official API: Invoice2go publishes no public API or self-serve API keys; its integrations site lists a REST API only as "Request this integration" (checked 8 Nov 2026).

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": "invoice2go_create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description resolves the apparent conflict between the 'create' name and readOnlyHint=true by stating plainly that it 'opens nothing by itself' and only returns instructions, which is exactly the extra context an agent needs. It also explains why browser automation is required (no public Invoice2go API or self-serve keys). It does not cover prerequisites such as an authenticated Cloud Browser session or what happens on failure.

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?

Behaviour is front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the execution path stated immediately after. The closing sentence about Invoice2go's API availability earns its place as justification for the browser approach, though it is dense and slightly over-detailed for a tool description.

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, no-output-schema instruction tool, the definition covers purpose, return shape (screens, buttons, fields), and the follow-up execution path. It could add whether the user must be logged into Invoice2go or have a Cloud Browser open before calling.

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 the schema carries no semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the invoice details are supplied during the subsequent browser-driven flow rather than as arguments here.

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 a specific verb and resource (create an invoice in the user's Invoice2go account) and, crucially, clarifies what the tool actually returns: step-by-step instructions (screens, buttons, fields) rather than a performed action. It is distinguishable from the cotlet_browser_* action tools it names as the execution path, though it does not contrast itself with close siblings like invoice2go_create_estimate or invoice2go_send_invoice.

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?

It gives clear workflow context: call this to get the procedure, then execute with cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Invoice2go Cloud Browser. That is explicit sequencing rather than an inferred one. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it relates to the other invoice2go_* siblings.

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

All Invoice2go 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