QuoteBuild

Prepare invoice send

prepare_invoice_send

Previews the exact current invoice recipient and payload, then stores a one-use ten-minute confirmation token. This does not send.

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": {
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "prepare_invoice_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoiceId`	Yes
`idempotencyKey`	Yes
`expectedVersion`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`warnings`	Yes
`provenance`	No
`assumptions`	Yes
`nextActions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and the description explains exactly why something is written: a one-use, ten-minute confirmation token, while confirming no message is dispatched. That is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing what happens on token expiry, version mismatch, or idempotent replay.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the preview behavior and the token side effect front-loaded and the non-sending guarantee stated last for emphasis.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the token lifecycle is covered. However, for a three-parameter mutation-adjacent tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter meaning and of failure-mode behavior leaves a real gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so all three required parameters (invoiceId, expectedVersion, idempotencyKey) are undocumented in both the schema and the description. Only invoiceId is loosely inferable from 'the exact current invoice'; expectedVersion and idempotencyKey carry no explanation of concurrency or replay semantics anywhere.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Previews the exact current invoice recipient and payload') with an explicit non-goal ('This does not send'), which separates it from send_invoice. It does not, however, position itself against the other prepare_* siblings or say what stage of the workflow it belongs to.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The implicit two-step flow (preview + token, then send) is inferable from 'stores a one-use ten-minute confirmation token' and 'This does not send'. There is no explicit directive such as 'call before send_invoice' and no stated conditions for when not to use it, so usage is implied rather than guided.

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

All QuoteBuild 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?