Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

File a pending recurring-invoice draft (human approves in Taokeh)

create_recurring_invoice_draft

FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY — NOTHING IS CREATED UNTIL A HUMAN REVIEWS AND APPROVES IT IN TAOKEH. Propose a NEW recurring invoice — a billing schedule that issues the same invoice to the same customer every month, quarter or year (a retainer, a subscription, a maintenance contract, rent). This does NOT create anything: it files a pending DRAFT the owner reviews and approves; only that tap saves the schedule. Give the customer (customerId from resolve_customer, or customer as an EXACT existing customer name — this tool never creates a customer), the lines (each a real catalogue product by productId or exact sku, with the quantity and the agreed unit price that will be billed EVERY cycle), the cadence, and the startDate — whose day of the month becomes the billing anchor (a 31st anchor lands on the 28th/29th/30th in shorter months). Optionally endDate, maxOccurrences, title, notes and paymentMethod (CREDIT = the customer owes it and pays later, CASH = settled at issue; these book differently, so ask rather than guess). ⛔ WHAT IT CANNOT DO: it cannot set issueMode: "auto" — a schedule you propose files an invoice DRAFT each cycle for a person to approve, and nothing proposed through this connector may buy itself the right to post invoices unattended; the owner switches that on themselves if they want it. It cannot set MFRS 15 revenue spreading (recognition), which is an accounting-policy decision on the schedule's own page. It cannot set the next issue date directly — that is derived from the start date and the cadence, and the review page tells the owner the exact date the FIRST invoice would be issued before they approve. BE HONEST: never guess a contracted price or a start date — leave the schedule unproposed and ask.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesYesWhat gets billed every cycle. Every line must be a real catalogue product. ⛔ LINE KEYS ARE STRICT: a key this schema does not list is REFUSED BY NAME and NOTHING is filed.
notesNoA SHORT reviewer note, in the reviewer's language: what this schedule bills and what they should double-check.
titleNoA short label for the schedule, e.g. 'Monthly retainer — Acme'. Optional; it never prints on the invoice.
cadenceYes
endDateNoStop issuing after this date. Optional.
customerNoAn EXACT existing customer name. A name that matches nobody is refused — this tool never creates a customer.
startDateYesThe first billing date. Its DAY OF THE MONTH becomes the anchor for every later cycle. A date in the past does not backfill — the first invoice lands on the first cycle on or after today.
customerIdNoThe customer id from resolve_customer. Give this OR `customer`.
needsReviewNoSet true when something gave you pause — a price the user was unsure about, a start date you inferred.
paymentMethodNoCREDIT (default) = the customer owes it. CASH = settled at issue. Ask the user; these book differently.
maxOccurrencesNoStop after this many invoices. Optional.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / lines / description
      Previous value: -"What gets billed every cycle. Every line must be a real catalogue product."New value: +"What gets billed every cycle. Every line must be a real catalogue product. ⛔ LINE KEYS ARE STRICT: a key this schema does not list is REFUSED BY NAME and NOTHING is filed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / lines / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as non-readOnly and destructive, so the draft-not-created nuance adds real behavioral context beyond the schema, including that the owner's tap is what saves the schedule. The description also reveals that issueMode auto is blocked and that first-issue date is derived and shown on the review page, which is valuable. It stops short of detailing failure modes or rate limits, but for a draft-creation tool the main consequences are well covered.

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 long but every section earns its place: it front-loads the draft-only warning, explains the schedule concept, maps the key parameters, lists prohibitions, and closes with an honest-use directive. It is arguably verbose, but the density of operational cautions justifies the length for a high-stakes billing tool.

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?

With no output schema and annotations that don't clarify side effects, the description carries the burden of explaining what happens after invocation—the draft goes to a human review page—and what the agent must not do. Missing an explicit statement of what a successful response contains, but for a draft-filing tool the workflow and constraints are complete enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 91% and the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds essential semantics: customer must exist exactly, lines must be real catalogue products, startDate day becomes billing anchor with month-end handling, and paymentMethod books differently. It reinforces the meaning of maxOccurrences and endDate indirectly, but relies on the schema for remaining details, hence not a 5.

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 opens with a clear, emphatic statement that this tool files a pending draft only and creates nothing until human approval, and it names the resource (recurring invoice draft) with the specific verb 'file'. It further differentiates from siblings like create_invoice_draft and update_recurring_invoice_draft by explaining that this proposes a new billing schedule, so an agent can select it confidently.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance: use it to propose recurring invoices (with retainer/subscription/rent examples), and it explicitly says what it cannot do (set issueMode auto, set MFRS 15 recognition, set next issue date directly). It also tells the agent to ask rather than guess when paymentMethod or prices/dates are uncertain, effectively defining when not to invoke the tool.

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