Skip to main content
Glama

BeeL

by es.beel

beel_skip_recurring_invoice

Idempotent

Skips the next scheduled invoice generation and advances the generation date to the following period. Nothing is issued.

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

⚠️ 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
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.
recurring_invoice_idYes

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds concrete behavioral detail: the date advances to the next period and no invoice is issued. It also warns about fiscal guardrails and references resources for invoice-type and regime_key rules, going beyond the annotation defaults.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact endpoint block and clearly separated guardrails. The formatting is scannable and every segment serves a purpose.

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 fiscal mutation, the description includes the endpoint, explicitly warns about guardrails, and routes to docs for exhaustive rules; annotations and a rich schema cover safety and company_id error behavior. It does not cover return values or alternative-tool selection, but those are not critical gaps given the provided resources.

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 input schema already documents company_id and idempotency_key in detail; the description adds the endpoint mapping but little semantic value for recurring_invoice_id, which remains undocumented. With 67% schema coverage and no description-level parameter detail, this is adequate but not additive.

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 opening sentence names a precise action ('Skips the next scheduled invoice generation'), the target resource, and the resulting state ('advances the generation date to the following period. Nothing is issued.'). This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_recurring_invoice_now or delete_recurring_invoice.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use when a scheduled generation should be bypassed and points to fiscal guardrails to review before calling. However, it does not explicitly compare alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name and effect.

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