Skip to main content
Glama

BeeL

by es.beel

beel_create_invoice_delivery

Idempotent

Sends one email carrying the PDFs of several invoices of this company as attachments.

  • recipients: required, and must carry at least one address; no address is inferred from any profile.

  • Limit: up to 200 invoices per message (invoice_ids).

  • Failures: invoices whose PDF cannot be attached are reported in failures, and the message is still sent with the rest.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/deliveries

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for this operation. Omit it and one is derived from the request itself, which makes a blind retry safe but also collapses a SECOND, deliberately identical operation into the first for 24 hours. Set it — to an order id, or anything unique per intended operation — whenever you mean to create something that may look identical to what you just created.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: partial failures are tolerated and reported in 'failures', the message is still sent with the rest, and no recipient address is inferred from any profile. These details are not present in the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, etc.), so the description genuinely informs the agent about edge-case behaviors.

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?

The description is highly concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by three tagged bullet points covering key constraints (recipients, limit, failures) and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. Information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the essentials quickly.

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?

The description covers the essential operational constraints: required recipients, maximum invoice count, and failure handling. It also includes the endpoint for reference. However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., what other fields are returned besides 'failures'), but since there is no output schema, some missing details are acceptable. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents most parameters with descriptions (company_id, idempotency_key, and the nested body properties). The description adds extra clarity for recipients (required, no inference) and the 200-invoice limit, which are partially covered in schema but reinforced here. With schema coverage at 67%, the description provides some compensation, but it does not elaborate on all parameters, leaving the bulk of semantics to the schema. This is a balanced score.

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?

The description clearly states the specific action: 'Sends one email carrying the PDFs of several invoices of this company as attachments.' It identifies the resource (invoices) and the operation (sending via email), and distinguishes from likely siblings like beel_send_invoice by emphasizing 'several invoices' in one message. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like beel_send_invoice or beel_get_invoice_pdf. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools. While it implies batch usage by saying 'several invoices,' there is no direct comparison or decision guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

All BeeL toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, and the detailed descriptions separate lookalikes like create_invoice, create_invoice_derivation, and create_invoice_delivery. The sheer number of tools makes selection harder, and a few same-verb clusters still demand close reading, but there are no true functional duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent beel_verb_noun pattern with clear CRUD verbs (create/get/list/patch/delete) plus domain verbs like issue, void, send, and retry. Minor inconsistencies remain: PATCH operations are sometimes patch_*, sometimes update_* or set_*, and there is an outlier put_member_grant.

Tool Count1/5

121 tools is far beyond the 50+ threshold and is an extreme mismatch for a tool surface, however broad the underlying API. Even with clean naming, this many tools forces agents to repeatedly scan a massive list and should be consolidated or split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers most lifecycles exhaustively: companies, customers, invoices, products, series, recurring invoices, webhooks, members, payment events, and tax configuration. A few sub-flows have dead ends — representation generation/download/cancel exist but no submit tool, and logo deletion exists without an upload tool — so it falls just short of full coverage.

Resources