Skip to main content
Glama

Invoice Ninja MCP by usefulapi

by io.usefulapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create an invoice

invoiceninja_create_invoice
Destructive

Create a DRAFT invoice for a client. It is not sent or emailed — use invoiceninja_mark_invoice_sent or invoiceninja_email_invoice afterwards. Invoice Ninja: POST /api/v1/invoices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoDocument date, YYYY-MM-DD.
termsNoTerms text.
footerNoFooter text.
numberNoDocument number. Omit to let Invoice Ninja assign the next one.
partialNoDeposit / partial amount due first.
discountNoDocument-level discount (amount or percent).
due_dateNoDue date (valid-until for quotes), YYYY-MM-DD.
client_idYesThe client's hashed id, e.g. "Wpmbk5ezJn".
po_numberNoPurchase order number.
tax_name1NoDocument-level tax name.
tax_rate1NoDocument-level tax rate in percent.
line_itemsNoLine items. On update this REPLACES all existing lines.
project_idNoLink to a project (hashed id).
public_notesNoNotes shown to the client.
private_notesNoInternal notes, not shown to the client.
partial_due_dateNoDue date of the partial amount, YYYY-MM-DD.
is_amount_discountNotrue = discount is an amount; false = a percentage.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint, so the description carries most of the burden and delivers the key behavioral fact: the record is created as a draft and will not be delivered. It does not describe what gets returned (notably the new invoice id needed for the follow-up calls) or the side effects of creating the resource.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, and the lifecycle constraint (draft, not sent) is front-loaded before the next-step routing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 17-parameter creation tool with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers purpose, state, and the follow-up workflow. It leaves a gap around the returned identifier needed to feed mark_invoice_sent/email_invoice, which is the one thing an agent must know to chain calls.

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% across all 17 parameters, including formats (YYYY-MM-DD), the hashed-id convention, and the line_items replacement warning, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 verb (Create), resource (invoice), and a distinguishing state qualifier (DRAFT) up front. It explicitly separates itself from the send/email path, so an agent can tell it apart from invoiceninja_mark_invoice_sent and invoiceninja_email_invoice without opening any schema.

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 clear sequencing guidance: it is not sent or emailed, and the two follow-up tools are named explicitly. It does not cover the other plausible alternative (invoiceninja_create_quote vs connoted convert_quote_to_invoice), but the primary routing decision is unambiguous.

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

All Invoice Ninja MCP by usefulapi toolsInspect
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