Skip to main content
Glama

Create invoice from quote

well_create_invoice_from_quote
Destructive

Turn an accepted sales quote (type 310) into an invoice draft (type 380) with the quote's customer, currency, lines and payment account. The draft is then issued with well_issue_invoice like any draft, and takes the invoice number. Refused for a denied quote. Calling it again for the same quote returns the draft it already made.

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": {
      "quote_id": "<quote_id>"
    },
    "name": "well_create_invoice_from_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quote_idYesThe invoice_id of the sales quote (type 310) the customer accepted. Its outcome must not be denied.
workspace_idNoTarget 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_idNoThe 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_keyNoOptional client-supplied key. A retried write with the same key returns the original result instead of re-applying the operation.
workspace_scopeNoRestrict this call to the family: the token's primary workspace plus the company workspaces under it that you are a member of. Unrelated authorized workspaces drop out of the read; row reads merge across the family, while a per-workspace figure still reports exactly one workspace.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeNo
errorNo
createdNoFalse when the quote was already converted: the answer names the draft it made before.
successYes
reply_linesNo
conversation_idNoThe conversation this result belongs to. Pass it back as the conversation_id argument on every later Well call in the same conversation.
near_candidatesNo
newly_connectedNoTools that connected to this workspace since the last result and that no session was told about yet, oldest first. Present only when at least one tool is new. The connected-line rule says when to tell an entry; when it does, one line per entry, in the person's language: "<name> is connected.". Never fold several entries into one sentence. Each entry comes back once, on one result only: never repeat its line later.
invoice_draft_idNo
conversation_id_noteNoPresent only when the server opened a fresh lane, stating that no choice recorded earlier was read.
conversation_id_sourceNoWhere the conversation id came from: the host's own request meta, the caller's argument, or a fresh lane the server opened.
near_candidates_truncatedNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorld=false) by disclosing that the result is only a draft, that issuing happens through well_issue_invoice, that a denied quote causes a refusal, and that repeat calls are idempotent per quote ('returns the draft it already made'). Those are exactly the consequences an agent needs before triggering a write with destructiveHint set.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and closed with the two failure/replay behaviors. Nothing is repeated and no sentence is filler.

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 single-required-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, the description covers the source, the produced artifact, the issuing path, the refusal condition, and idempotency. An agent can chain it to well_issue_invoice correctly without consulting anything else.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the per-parameter descriptions already explain quote_id's type-310/denied-outcome constraint, workspace disambiguation, conversation_id, and idempotency_key. The description reinforces the accepted-quote semantics but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Turn an accepted sales quote (type 310) into an invoice draft (type 380)') and enumerates what is carried over: customer, currency, lines, payment account. The document-type codes distinguish it cleanly from siblings like well_create_invoice_from_data or well_create_invoice_document.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (the quote must be accepted; refused for a denied quote) and names the mandatory follow-up step, well_issue_invoice, which is what actually issues and numbers the invoice. It stops short of explicitly contrasting this with the other invoice-creation siblings, so the agent still has to infer when this is the right entry point versus creating an invoice from raw data.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources