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). A CASH schedule's money is booked where the schedule's "Paid into" says: the owner picks it on the schedule's own page, never this tool, and a schedule proposed here starts on the default (the Cash account for a walk-in customer, otherwise the account the company books cash sales to, usually its main bank). ⛔ 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. A line carrying Taokeh's printed per-foot or per-piece note (like "(400' @ RM 1.60/feet)") is refused: a schedule holds no size or tally, so it would bill without its rounding line every cycle. Raise those invoices with create_invoice_draft in their filed form. On an update, such a line already on the schedule may be sent back unchanged. ⛔ 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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / lines / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"What gets billed every cycle. Every line must be a real catalogue product. A line carrying Taokeh's printed per-foot or per-piece note (like \"(400' @ RM 1.60/feet)\") is refused: a schedule holds no size or tally, so it would bill without its rounding line every cycle. Raise those invoices with create_invoice_draft in their filed form. On an update, such a line already on the schedule may be sent back unchanged. ⛔ LINE KEYS ARE STRICT: a key this schema does not list is REFUSED BY NAME and NOTHING is filed."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / lines / items / properties / unitPrice / description
      Previous value: -"The agreed price per unit, in ringgit, billed every cycle. This replays exactly as stored — it does not follow the product’s list price."New value: +"The agreed price per unit, in ringgit, billed every cycle. This replays exactly as stored — it does not follow the product’s list price. Two decimals at most (whole sen, or whole cents in another currency); put a discount or tax in its own field, never folded into the price."
  3. 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
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description goes far beyond: nothing persists until a human approves in Taokeh, issueMode='auto' and MFRS 15 recognition cannot be set here, the next issue date is derived and never set directly, and CASH money is booked to a 'Paid into' account the owner picks elsewhere. These are exactly the behavioral constraints an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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 critical constraint is front-loaded in caps and reinforced with a ⛔ section, so an agent skimming still lands on the safety facts first. It is longer than necessary and restates the 'nothing is created until approval' point three times, which costs a little against an otherwise well-sectioned structure.

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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers what gets written, what is explicitly forbidden (auto issue mode, revenue spreading, direct next-issue-date), how CASH vs CREDIT book, and the human-approval loop. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and the absence of an output schema is handled by describing the review-page outcome.

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 already 91%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter meaning beyond the schema — that a 31st start-date anchor lands on the 28th/29th/30th in shorter months, that a past startDate does not backfill, and that CASH vs CREDIT book differently so the agent should ask rather than guess — though it also repeats several line-level details already present in the 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 opening states a specific verb and resource ('Propose a NEW recurring invoice — a billing schedule that issues the same invoice to the same customer every month, quarter or year') and immediately scopes it as a pending draft. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (create_invoice_draft for filed per-foot lines), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use (retainer/subscription/maintenance/rent), when-not-to-use (per-foot or per-piece tally lines must go to create_invoice_draft in filed form), and the exact conditions and companion tools for inputs (customerId from resolve_customer, productId/sku via resolve_product). It also states the honesty rule: leave unproposed and ask rather than guess a price or start date.

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