Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet

Record payment

record_payment

Destructive

Record a payment received against an invoice and reduce the amount due. Adds a payment you already received to an approved invoice, as Add Payment does: amount, date, method (by name, from Settings > Payment Methods) and a reference. It charges nobody and emails nobody. The amount cannot exceed what is due; paying it all marks the invoice paid. If an accounting app is connected, Tradify syncs the payment to it.

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": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "record_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Payment date. Default: today.
`amount`	Yes	Amount received, at most the amount due.
`method`	No	Payment method name, e.g. Bank Deposit, Cash, Credit Card. Default: Unknown.
`reference`	No	e.g. the check number.
`invoice_id`	Yes	Invoice ID from list_invoices.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well past the annotations by disclosing side effects: no charge, no email, amount capped at the amount due, full payment marks the invoice paid, and a sync to any connected accounting app. It does not address what happens on repeated calls (idempotentHint=false) or how to correct a mistaken payment, which is a real gap given destructiveHint=true.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then constraints, then the external side effect. The 'amount cannot exceed what is due' line repeats the schema slightly, but it reinforces a hard failure condition rather than wasting space.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, it covers preconditions, constraints and downstream sync well. The remaining hole is the return value and whether a recorded payment can be amended or voided, which the agent must know before invoking a destructive write.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the schema already documents all five parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by specifying that the method is supplied by name from Settings > Payment Methods and that reference carries something like a check number, which the schema only gestures at.

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 payment received against an invoice') and the resulting effect ('reduce the amount due'), which no sibling tool does. The line 'as Add Payment does' anchors it to a known UI action, and 'charges nobody and emails nobody' implicitly separates it from 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?

Establishes the precondition clearly: a payment you already received, against an approved invoice. The 'charges nobody and emails nobody' remark steers the agent away from using this to bill a customer, but no sibling tool is named as the alternative for that case.

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

All Tradify 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.