Well

Assign missing-invoice owners

well_assign_missing_invoice_owners

Destructive

Set the owner SET of the missing-invoice TRANSACTIONS you name — the only write for missing-invoice ownership.

REQUIRED: transaction_ids — the settled lines still missing a supplier invoice, from well_list_missing_invoice_owners. owner_person_ids — the people who together owe those invoices; pass an EMPTY array to clear the owners.

Ownership is per TRANSACTION and is a SET, not one owner and not a card rule. The write REPLACES the owner set on every named transaction: the people you send become its owners and anyone not sent is removed. Assigning several people to a (counterparty × month) gap creates ONE proof task per distinct person, and ONE supplier invoice resolves every owner's task for that gap — the fan-out is for accountability, not for N separate collections. Tell the user this plainly.

Each person_id must already be a member of the workspace (get them with well_query_records on people). A person outside the workspace is refused (refusal_reason NOT_FOUND), not silently dropped.

Closed periods are frozen: a transaction whose fiscal month already closed refuses the whole batch (refusal_reason CLOSE_OWNER_PERIOD_FROZEN) rather than rewriting a committed close. A transaction id the workspace does not own refuses the batch too (refusal_reason NOT_FOUND).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace_id`	No	Target workspace. Omit when the token authorizes one workspace. Required when it authorizes several — a write lands in exactly one workspace and this call would not say which.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
`transaction_ids`	Yes	The missing-invoice transactions to assign, from well_list_missing_invoice_owners.
`owner_person_ids`	Yes	The workspace people who together own these transactions' missing invoices; an empty array clears the owners.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`owner_count`	No	How many people own each of those transactions after the write.
`refusal_reason`	No	The WellError code when the write is refused — CLOSE_OWNER_PERIOD_FROZEN for a closed month, NOT_FOUND for a person outside the workspace or a transaction the workspace does not own.
`conversation_id`	No	The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
`refusal_details`	No	Structured facts a refusal code alone does not carry — for CLOSE_OWNER_PERIOD_FROZEN, the frozen `{ fiscalYear, fiscalPeriod }`. A NOT_FOUND names the offending id in `error` instead.
`transaction_ids`	No	The distinct transactions whose owner set the write replaced.
`owner_person_ids`	No	The explicit owner set written to every named transaction; empty when the owners were cleared.
`transaction_count`	No	How many distinct transactions the write touched.
`conversation_id_note`	No	Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
`conversation_id_source`	No	Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 22, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation id returned by the previous Well result, in its meta under well/conversation_id, in its structuredContent, or in its JSON text block. Pass it back on every call in the same conversation, including a call a card makes, so the chosen workspace and the earlier answers still apply. It decides the conversation on its own: nothing the host states about the session replaces it. Omit it only on the first call of a conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_note

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / conversation_id_source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.",
+  "enum": [
+    "host_meta",
+    "argument",
+    "minted"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses that the write replaces the entire owner set, removes unspecified owners, creates one proof task per distinct person with a single resolving invoice, and refuses the whole batch with specific refusal reasons for closed periods, out-of-workspace people, and non-owned transaction ids. 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 description is long, but it is front-loaded with purpose and required parameters, and every paragraph adds non-redundant behavioral or failure-mode information. A few stylistic redundancies (repeated NOT_FOUND reason, all-caps emphasis) keep it from being a 5.

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?

For a destructive multi-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, set-replacement behavior, refusal semantics, frozen-period handling, and the get-people workflow. Optional workspace/conversation/idempotency semantics are fully handled in the schema, so no critical calling information is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already describes all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3; the description adds crucial semantics for transaction_ids and owner_person_ids: ownership is a SET, not a single owner or card rule, the write REPLACES the set, and the fan-out is for accountability rather than N independent collections. This materially improves parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action ('Set the owner SET') on a specific resource ('missing-invoice TRANSACTIONS') and explicitly claims it is 'the only write for missing-invoice ownership,' distinguishing it from the read-only sibling well_list_missing_invoice_owners and other write tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit selection guidance: it is 'the only write for missing-invoice ownership,' names the source tool well_list_missing_invoice_owners for transaction_ids, instructs to get people via well_query_records, and explains the empty-array clearing behavior. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and prerequisite context.

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

All Well 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.

Resources

Need Help?