ExpenseBot

mark_client_invoice_paid

Destructive

Mark an issued client invoice as paid after explicit confirmation. Requires a strict calendar-valid paidDate in YYYY-MM-DD format. This updates the accounts-receivable invoice record only; it never creates or moves an Income row. Record the actual payment separately or link an existing Income row.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`paidVia`	No	Optional payment method or source, such as bank transfer or check.
`paidDate`	Yes	Calendar-valid payment date in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`invoiceId`	Yes	Stable invoice ID from list_client_invoices.
`paidAmount`	No	Optional amount received.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`paidVia`	Yes
`success`	Yes
`paidDate`	Yes
`invoiceId`	Yes
`paidAmount`	Yes
`invoiceNumber`	No
`incomeRowCreated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "incomeRowCreated": {
+      "const": false,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "invoiceId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "invoiceNumber": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paidAmount": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "paidDate": {
+      "format": "date",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paidVia": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "const": "paid",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "success": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success",
+    "invoiceId",
+    "status",
+    "paidDate",
+    "paidAmount",
+    "paidVia",
+    "incomeRowCreated",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "description": "Standard ExpenseBot tool result envelope. `message` is the human-readable summary the AI cites; `data` is the structured payload (totals, breakdowns, ids, etc.). On failure, `success` is false and `error` carries a code/message/hint triple.",
-  "properties": {
-    "data": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Structured payload. Shape varies per tool — common keys: total, breakdown, comparison, sampleMeta, ids, expenseId, reportId, signupUrl, results.",
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "error": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Present only when success === false.",
-      "properties": {
-        "code": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "hint": {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        "message": {
-          "type": "string"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "message": {
-      "description": "Human-readable result text. Always present on success; prefer rendering this verbatim before any further reasoning.",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "sampleMeta": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "description": "Set when the underlying dataset was truncated. isTruncated=true means the agent saw a sample of `sampleCount` of `totalCount` rows; aggregate totals are still accurate.",
-      "properties": {
-        "isTruncated": {
-          "type": "boolean"
-        },
-        "sampleCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        },
-        "totalCount": {
-          "type": "integer"
-        }
-      },
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    "success": {
-      "description": "False on tool errors; check before reading `data`.",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null

Changed1 schema field changedAug 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / paidDate / format
```
Added value: +"date"
```
AddedAug 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a write/destructive operation. The description adds meaningful scope: it specifies the update is limited to the invoice record and explicitly states what it does not do (create/move Income rows). It also enforces a strict date format requirement. This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful behavioral context.

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 description is three concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and key constraint are front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place by adding scope or exclusion information. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool has only four parameters, the description covers the essential context: the action, the required date format, the scope of the update, and what it does not do. It does not explain the meaning of 'explicit confirmation' in workflow terms, but that is a minor gap given the output schema and annotations provide the rest.

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%, so all four parameters are already described in the schema. The description reinforces the paidDate format ('strict calendar-valid paidDate in YYYY-MM-DD format'), but this largely duplicates the schema's format and description. It adds no new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Mark an issued client invoice as paid') and clearly differentiates it from income-recording siblings by noting it 'updates the accounts-receivable invoice record only; it never creates or moves an Income row.' This distinguishes it from add_income and similar tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: it is for marking an invoice paid 'after explicit confirmation' and explicitly directs the user to 'Record the actual payment separately or link an existing Income row.' This implies the tool is not for recording income itself. It doesn't name a specific alternative tool, but the guidance is sufficient to route an agent appropriately.

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

All ExpenseBot tools Inspect

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.