Skip to main content
Glama

BeeL

by es.beel

beel_get_invoice_schedule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the date and generation mode currently scheduled for this invoice. An invoice with no scheduling answers 404, since the sub-resource does not exist yet. To move only the date, read the current generation_mode here and send it back on the PUT.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/{invoice_id}/schedule

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • When an invoice can still be changed, and what to do once it cannot. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-state-machine)

  • Choosing wrong here misreports to AEAT. The 30-second decision. (resource: beel://guardrails/cancel-vs-rectify)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.
invoice_idYesInvoice ID

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the 404 response when no schedule exists, the need to preserve generation_mode on update, and the endpoint path. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the 404 edge case and a practical workflow tip. The fiscal guardrails block adds some context but is arguably generic and not specifically about this GET tool, which prevents a higher score.

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 simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers the purpose, the absence case, and the returned conceptual fields. There is no output schema, but the description states what is returned; exhaustive rules are delegated to beel_docs_search, which is reasonable at this complexity level.

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 documents both parameters and even includes a detailed company_id explanation. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond embedding the path template, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it "Returns the date and generation mode currently scheduled for this invoice." It also distinguishes this read operation from the sibling update/delete schedule tools by clarifying the sub-resource semantics and the 404 absence case.

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 description gives clear context for when to call this tool, especially before a date-only update: "To move only the date, read the current generation_mode here and send it back on the PUT." It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide.

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