Well

Delete invoice

well_delete_invoice

Destructive

Delete an invoice from Well (soft delete).

REQUIRED: invoice_id

Soft-deletes the invoice. Linked line items and payment_means rows are NOT cascade-deleted — they remain in the database, orphaned. The delete is reversible only at the database level.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoice_id`	Yes	The UUID of the invoice to delete
`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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`success`	Yes
`invoice_id`	No
`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.
`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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description

Previous value: -"Target workspace. Omit to use the only authorized workspace, or (for read tools) to query all authorized workspaces grouped by workspace. Required for write tools when the token authorizes more than one workspace."New value: +"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."

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explicitly says 'soft delete', explains that linked line items and payment_means rows are NOT cascade-deleted and remain orphaned, and notes the deletion is reversible only at the database level. This goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, which only signals destructiveness. It does not contradict the annotations and provides valuable side-effect information.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose and the required parameter. The body consists of two sentences that efficiently cover the soft-delete behavior and its side effects. The 'REQUIRED: invoice_id' line is a small redundancy with the schema but serves as a useful reminder. Overall, it is well-structured and wastes no words.

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 destructive tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral caveats: soft delete, non-cascade, and reversibility constraints. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema, and the description provides the missing operational context (orphaned rows). It is adequately complete for agent invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates 'REQUIRED: invoice_id', which the schema already documents as required. It does not add any additional meaning for workspace_id, conversation_id, or idempotency_key beyond what the schema provides. No new parameter semantics are introduced.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete an invoice from Well') and identifies the resource (invoice), while also specifying 'soft delete' to set it apart from a hard delete. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like well_delete_company and well_delete_person. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as well_update_invoice or well_delete_company. The description does not state prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only contextual hint is the resource name, leaving the agent to infer usage without direct guidance.

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?