A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceCreate free, no-signup invoices from your AI assistant — the create_invoice tool returns a link that opens blankinvoicemaker.com pre-filled, ready to download as a watermark-free PDF.
2
61
1
MIT
final-notice
Server Details
Free demand-letter PDF generator for unpaid invoices, 80+ jurisdictions, 29 languages.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- ptrinh/finalnotice-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- Final Notice
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: listing jurisdictions, previewing content, and generating the final PDF. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_jurisdictions, preview_demand_letter, generate_demand_letter), making the API predictable.
Tool Count4/5
Three tools is minimal but appropriate for the narrow scope of generating demand letters. The set covers the essential workflow without being overly sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover the core workflow: discover jurisdictions, preview text, generate PDF. Minor gaps like dedicated jurisdiction detail or template customization are absent but not critical for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsgenerate_demand_letterAInspect
Generate the finished demand-letter PDF (formal letter + matching envelope), localized and legally formatted for the jurisdiction. Returns the PDF as a base64 resource. Free, no registration.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | Payment/bank details keyed by field (e.g. {bankName, iban, accountNumber}). Optional. | |
| tone | No | Escalation level. Default: final. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount owed, as a number (no separators). Required, > 0. | |
| attested | No | Confirms authorization to send under the sender name. Required when senderType is business/firm. | |
| currency | No | ISO 4217 currency (optional; defaults to the jurisdiction's). | |
| language | No | Letter language code (e.g. en, es, fr, de, pt, ar, zh, ja). Must be offered for the jurisdiction; defaults to en. | |
| senderRef | No | Creditor's own reference number (optional). | |
| debtorName | Yes | Debtor name. Required. | |
| debtorType | No | Whether the debtor is a private individual (consumer) or a business. 'individual' activates jurisdiction consumer rules (e.g. GB Pre-Action Protocol 30-day floor, NL WIK wording). Default: business. | |
| enclosures | No | Enclosed documents, printed as 'Encl.: …' under the signature (e.g. 'Copy of invoice INV-123'). Optional. | |
| senderName | Yes | Creditor name (person or business). Required. | |
| senderType | No | Creditor type. Business/firm requires attested=true. | |
| signerName | No | Name of the person signing (optional; defaults to senderName). | |
| description | No | What the debt is for (optional). | |
| senderTitle | No | Signer's job title (optional). | |
| deadlineDays | No | Days from issue to pay (optional; default 14). | |
| jurisdiction | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the debtor (e.g. US, GB, DE, BR, AE). Use list_jurisdictions for the full set; XX = generic/international. | |
| originalDate | No | ISO date the debt was incurred/invoiced (optional). | |
| debtorAddress | Yes | Debtor postal address, multi-line. Required. | |
| invoiceNumber | No | Invoice/account number (optional). | |
| senderAddress | Yes | Creditor postal address, multi-line (\n separated). Required. | |
| senderContact | No | Creditor email/phone (optional). | |
| deliveryMethod | No | How the letter is sent; printed as a notation above the recipient (e.g. 'By registered post and email'). Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavior: generates PDF, returns base64. It mentions localization and legal formatting but omits details on processing time, size limits, authentication, or data storage. Adequate for a generation tool but lacks depth.
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 concise sentences: first states core function and output, second adds 'Free, no registration.' Front-loaded with essential information, no redundant words.
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?
With 23 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers core functionality but does not mention prerequisites like jurisdiction requirement or input validation. Sibling tools are not referenced, missing guidance on tool interactions.
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 schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond summarizing the tool's purpose. Baseline score of 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 clearly states it generates a finished demand-letter PDF, including formal letter and envelope, localized and legally formatted. It explicitly mentions the output as a base64 resource, distinguishing it from siblings like list_jurisdictions and preview_demand_letter.
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 description implies usage for generating final documents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus preview_demand_letter or list_jurisdictions. It lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_jurisdictionsAInspect
List every supported country/jurisdiction (code, name, currency, default language) plus the available languages and tones. Call this first to pick a valid jurisdiction + language.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state safety, side effects, or data freshness. However, for a simple list tool, this is adequate.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word serves a purpose: describes contents and suggests usage. No redundancy.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. Could specify output structure (e.g., array) but sufficient for a simple list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema (100% coverage), so description's job is to explain output. It lists what the tool returns, providing useful context beyond the empty 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?
The description clearly states the tool lists supported countries with specific fields (code, name, currency, default language) plus languages and tones. It distinguishes from siblings (generate/preview letters) by being a discovery tool.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first to pick a valid jurisdiction + language,' guiding the agent to use it before other tools. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the context implies it's for initial setup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
preview_demand_letterAInspect
Render the demand letter's text content (title, subject, body paragraphs, amount line, legal reference, closing) as structured JSON, without producing a PDF. Use to review or refine wording before generating.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bank | No | Payment/bank details keyed by field (e.g. {bankName, iban, accountNumber}). Optional. | |
| tone | No | Escalation level. Default: final. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount owed, as a number (no separators). Required, > 0. | |
| attested | No | Confirms authorization to send under the sender name. Required when senderType is business/firm. | |
| currency | No | ISO 4217 currency (optional; defaults to the jurisdiction's). | |
| language | No | Letter language code (e.g. en, es, fr, de, pt, ar, zh, ja). Must be offered for the jurisdiction; defaults to en. | |
| senderRef | No | Creditor's own reference number (optional). | |
| debtorName | Yes | Debtor name. Required. | |
| debtorType | No | Whether the debtor is a private individual (consumer) or a business. 'individual' activates jurisdiction consumer rules (e.g. GB Pre-Action Protocol 30-day floor, NL WIK wording). Default: business. | |
| enclosures | No | Enclosed documents, printed as 'Encl.: …' under the signature (e.g. 'Copy of invoice INV-123'). Optional. | |
| senderName | Yes | Creditor name (person or business). Required. | |
| senderType | No | Creditor type. Business/firm requires attested=true. | |
| signerName | No | Name of the person signing (optional; defaults to senderName). | |
| description | No | What the debt is for (optional). | |
| senderTitle | No | Signer's job title (optional). | |
| deadlineDays | No | Days from issue to pay (optional; default 14). | |
| jurisdiction | No | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code of the debtor (e.g. US, GB, DE, BR, AE). Use list_jurisdictions for the full set; XX = generic/international. | |
| originalDate | No | ISO date the debt was incurred/invoiced (optional). | |
| debtorAddress | Yes | Debtor postal address, multi-line. Required. | |
| invoiceNumber | No | Invoice/account number (optional). | |
| senderAddress | Yes | Creditor postal address, multi-line (\n separated). Required. | |
| senderContact | No | Creditor email/phone (optional). | |
| deliveryMethod | No | How the letter is sent; printed as a notation above the recipient (e.g. 'By registered post and email'). Optional. |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool renders text without producing a PDF, but does not explicitly declare it as read-only or free of side effects, nor mention authentication or rate limits. Basic transparency is present but incomplete.
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 consists of two well-structured sentences: the first states the action and output type, the second states the use case. No wasted words; information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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?
While the description covers purpose and basic behavior, it lacks details on the output structure (no output schema). With 23 parameters and nested objects, the agent might benefit from a clearer indication of how the JSON is structured. However, the description is sufficient for a preview tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are adequately documented. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 tool renders demand letter text content as structured JSON without producing a PDF, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling generate_demand_letter by noting it is for review before generating.
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 explicitly says 'Use to review or refine wording before generating,' giving clear context for when to use. Alternatives are implied by sibling names (generate_demand_letter for final output), but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceEnables the generation of professional PDF invoices and their distribution via email using customizable templates. It allows users to create, manage, and send invoices with standard business fields like tax rates and line items through natural language.392MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAI-powered invoice automation. Create PDF invoices, predict late payment risk 0-100, auto-send reminders, reconcile Stripe/PayPal payments, track cash flow. 10 MCP tools, 4 resources.1071MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceGenerate professional PDFs from Claude, Cursor, and other AI tools. Create invoices, contracts, reports, and certificates from templates or inline HTML markup.7381MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.