Skip to main content
Glama

BeeL

by es.beel

beel_delete_customers_bulk

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes the customers listed in ids from this company.

Partial results

  • Partial operation: the customers that can be deleted are deleted, and the rest keep their place in customers_deletion with the status that explains why. That is why it answers 200 with a body instead of 204, and why it answers 200 even when no row could be deleted.

  • HAS_INVOICES: a customer that has invoices cannot be deleted and comes back with that row status.

What deleting means

  • Semantics: the same semantics as DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/customers/{customer_id} — the customer is retained internally for tax record-keeping purposes but is no longer exposed by the API, its identifier is released for reuse, and invoices already issued to it keep their own copy of the recipient's details.

  • Deleting is not deactivating: deleting frees the identifier, so the same NIF can be registered again, while PATCH with active: false leaves the customer where it is with its NIF still taken.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/customers/bulk

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesComma-separated customer IDs
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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already include destructiveHint and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavior: partial operation, 200 instead of 204, 200 even when nothing is deleted, HAS_INVOICES status, internal retention for tax purposes, identifier release, and invoice copy semantics. This goes well beyond the structured hints and gives an accurate model of side effects.

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 length is justified by the destructive partial-operation semantics, and the content is organized with bold headers and a front-loaded one-sentence summary. Every included detail addresses a behavioral fact an agent needs, with no filler. The endpoint line at the end is minor redundancy but does not detract.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive bulk operation with no output schema, the description covers the key facts: partial success, HTTP status behavior, invoice-holding failure reason, the semantic effect on identifiers, and the distinction from deactivation. The only omitted details, such as exact response body fields, are unlikely to prevent correct invocation and are not promised elsewhere.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's comma-separated ids and company_id context. Its additional detail is operational rather than parameter-focused.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes the customers listed in `ids` from this company,' which captures the bulk scope. It also contrasts with the singular DELETE endpoint and with PATCH deactivation, so an agent can distinguish it from beel_delete_customer and beel_patch_customer. The name and description align cleanly.

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?

The 'Deleting is not deactivating' section provides an explicit alternative (PATCH with active:false) and explains the consequences of each choice, which is real routing guidance. It also states that the bulk operation has the same semantics as the singular DELETE endpoint, implying the bulk-vs-single distinction. However, it never explicitly says 'use beel_delete_customer for a single customer,' so the when-not-to-use guidance is slightly incomplete.

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