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.

  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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Extremely transparent. States this files a draft only, that nothing is posted until a human reviews, that it never buys itself auto-issue, that a customer must already existarked, that no customer will be created. It also flags that wrong guesses should be avoided and user should be asked. That's exactly what an agent needs to know about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

Long but dense. The leading ALL-CAPS warning is an excellent front-loaded structure that prevents misuse. A few redundancies (e.g. repeating that nothing is created until human approval) could be trimmed, but everything present carries operational weight. Not quite a 5 because it could be tightened.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers what the tool does, prerequisites (existing customer, real products), constraints (cannot auto-issue, no revenue spreading), field semantics, and behavioral guardrails. Sibling context is implied through repeated contrast with single-invoice drafts. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds critical context: `customer` must be an existing resolved customer, lines may be productId or sku, prices bill every cycle, day-of-month anchoring for recurring dates, paymentMethod semantics (CREDIT vs CASH), and behavior guards (never guess). This is far beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 precise action (file a recurring invoice draft), a specific resource (recurring schedule), and its key distinguishing constraint — nothing is created until a human approves in Taokeh. This is clearly differentiated from create_invoice_draft and other draft tools by the 'recurring' focus and the explicit workflow.

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 explains when to use it (propose a recurring invoice schedule) and when not to — it explicitly states it cannot set issueMode to auto or set revenue recognition, and warns against guessing prices/dates. It also says to ask rather than guess for paymentMethod. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like create_invoice_draft as alternatives, hence 4 not 5.

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