Skip to main content
Glama

BeeL

by es.beel

beel_patch_recurring_invoice

Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the recurring invoice template as it is.

  • Omitted vs null: an omitted field keeps its current value; a field sent as null is cleared, and only where the request schema documents the field as nullable.

  • lines: replaced as a whole, not patched line by line. The recipient survives the change, and an empty array is rejected.

  • payment_method: replaced as a whole together with payment_iban, payment_swift and payment_term_days — send them in the same request or they are dropped.

  • Schedule: day_of_month and start_date stay put unless you send them; sending day_of_month moves the next generation. start_date is only editable while the template has not generated any invoice yet.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices/{recurring_invoice_id}

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • How BeeL derives the AEAT invoice type, and the rules each type imposes. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-types)

  • What regime_key means, where it lives, and which combinations are rejected. (resource: beel://guardrails/regime-keys)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

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.
recurring_invoice_idYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations limited to hints like openWorldHint and destructiveHint, the description carries the behavioral burden and excels: it discloses partial-update semantics, null-clearing behavior, whole-array replacement for lines, the payment-method grouping trap, schedule retention, and critical fiscal guardrails. This is far beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 summary statement is front-loaded, followed by tight bullets that each convey one non-obvious rule, then the endpoint and guardrail pointers. No sentence is filler; the structure makes the subtle patch semantics scannable without becoming a wall of text.

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?

This is a semantically tricky mutation with no output schema, and the description covers the key behaviors an agent must know before calling it: partial updates, null-clearing, whole-array replacement, coupled payment fields, schedule constraints, and fiscal guardrails with a pointer to exhaustive docs. An agent can reason about consequences before invoking the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is low at 33%, and the description compensates substantially by explaining the patch model, omitted-vs-null distinction, line replacement, payment-method group coupling, and schedule behavior. The schema's nested property descriptions already cover many individual fields, so the description adds the missing cross-field semantics rather than duplicating parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the recurring invoice template as it is." This clearly distinguishes it from creation, full replacement, and single-field setter tools among the siblings. The PATCH endpoint line reinforces the precise scope.

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, concrete guidance on when and how to use it: omitted fields are kept, null clears only documented-nullable fields, lines are replaced as a whole, payment fields must be sent together, and start_date is editable only before any invoice is generated. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to exclude, but the usage context is unambiguous and sufficiently actionable.

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