Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Supplier Invoice Tool

by io.github.Nero-Engine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Put the month's bills into Xero as drafts

push_bills_to_xero
Idempotent

Put the month's bills into Xero as DRAFT bills, one per supplier, one line per job, with the original invoices attached. Without send: true it is a dry run that shows what would be sent. Running it again updates the same draft (no duplicates). A bill the trade has already approved is never changed; late invoices go on a top up bill. Never approves or pays.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "month": "<month>"
    },
    "name": "push_bills_to_xero"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sendNotrue to really add the drafts. Default false (dry run).
monthYesYYYY-MM, for example 2026-11.
suppliersNoOnly these suppliers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing what the write actually does: drafts per supplier, per-job lines, attachments, idempotent re-run behaviour, protection of already-approved bills, top-up bill handling for late invoices, and the explicit guarantee that it never approves or pays. That is exactly the mutation-safety context an agent needs before a write call.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the dry-run toggle, then idempotency, then safety guarantees. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries distinct information.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behavioural contours: idempotency, safety boundaries, and the dry-run preview. It could be more complete by noting the Xero connection prerequisite or what the dry run reports back, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already documented inline, including the 'send' default and month format. The description reinforces the meaning of 'send' (dry run vs. real) and the month scope, but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Put the month's bills into Xero as DRAFT bills') and adds structural detail ('one per supplier, one line per job, with the original invoices attached'). It is unmistakable what the tool does, though it never names a sibling such as add_supplier_invoices to delineate when that alternative applies.

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?

Clear operational context: without 'send: true' it is a dry run showing what would be sent, and re-running updates the same draft rather than duplicating. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g. that connect_xero must have run) or when to reach for a sibling tool instead.

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

All Supplier Invoice Tool toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources