Skip to main content
Glama

Taokeh MCP server

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

update_recurring_invoice_draft

FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY — NOTHING CHANGES UNTIL A HUMAN REVIEWS AND APPROVES IT IN TAOKEH. Propose changes to a recurring invoice ALREADY set up in Taokeh — a price rise across a subscription, a changed quantity, a new end date, a cadence correction, or PAUSING the billing. This does NOT change anything: it files a pending DRAFT the owner reviews as a DIFF (current → proposed, changed fields only) and approves; only that tap writes. Name the schedule with recurringId, its real id — there is NO name fallback, because a schedule title is free text and one customer often has two schedules (a monthly retainer and an annual licence), so guessing between them would re-bill the wrong contract. proposed holds ONLY what you want changed: title, customerId/customer, lines, cadence, paymentMethod, startDate, endDate, maxOccurrences, notes, and status ("paused" to stop future invoices, "active" to resume). ⚠ lines is WHOLE-REPLACE: send every line the schedule should have, including the unchanged ones — for a price rise, send the same lines with the new prices. ⚠ APPROVING CAN MOVE THE BILLING DATE even when you change only a price: Taokeh re-derives the next issue date from the start date on every save, so the review page states the exact date the next invoice would go out, and whether that has moved. ⛔ WHAT IT CANNOT DO, each refused by name: it cannot set issueMode: "auto" — that would let one approval remove the human tap from every future invoice; it cannot set status: "ended", a ONE-WAY door no later draft could undo (propose "paused" instead, which stops the billing just as completely and can be resumed); it cannot set MFRS 15 revenue spreading, an accounting-policy decision on the schedule's own page; and it cannot touch the invoices this schedule has ALREADY issued — a change reaches the next firing and no earlier one. If a past invoice was wrong, credit it (create_credit_note_draft); the schedule only decides what happens next. A field the record already agrees with is dropped, and a proposal that changes nothing is refused rather than filed as an empty diff. One schedule per call — loop for a sweep across several, because each reviewable diff is the point.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesNoA SHORT reviewer note, in the reviewer's language: what you changed, why, and what they should double-check.
proposedYesONLY the fields you want changed. A field the record already agrees with is dropped; an unknown or deliberately-excluded field is refused by name.
needsReviewNoSet true when something gave you pause — a price the user was unsure about, a date you inferred.
recurringIdYesThe recurring invoice's real id. Required — there is no name fallback.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / proposed / properties / lines / description
      Previous value: -"WHOLE-REPLACE. Send every line the schedule should bill from now on, not just the changed ones — a partial set would silently drop the rest."New value: +"WHOLE-REPLACE. Send every line the schedule should bill from now on, not just the changed ones — a partial set would silently drop the rest. ⛔ LINE KEYS ARE STRICT, exactly as on create_recurring_invoice_draft: a key this schema does not list is REFUSED BY NAME and NOTHING is filed."
    • addedInput schema / properties / proposed / properties / lines / items / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / proposed / properties / lines / items / properties / description / description
      Added value: +"The line text as PRINTED on the document, when it says more than the product name does — a size, a grade, a job reference, a period covered. It rides onto the posted line and prints on the customer's copy, so send what the paper says rather than a tidier phrasing of your own. Leave it out when the product name already says it. This is TEXT, not a field: Taokeh has no column for a dimension, a grade or a variant, so anything of that kind belongs here."
    • addedInput schema / properties / proposed / properties / lines / minItems
      Added value: +1
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which conveys little about safety. The description carries the full burden and excels: it warns nothing changes until human approval, discloses the whole-replace behavior of lines, warns that approving can move the billing date, lists refused operations, and explains that agreeing fields are dropped and empty proposals are refused. This is rich, specific behavioral context beyond any annotation.

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: purpose, alternatives, critical warnings, refused operations, and loop guidance. It is front-loaded with the most important constraint (files a draft only). It could be slightly tightened, as some repetition of 'does NOT change anything' appears, but the density of high-value warnings justifies the length.

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 a complex mutation-adjacent tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no meaningful annotations, the description is thoroughly complete. It covers what happens on approval, what is refused, what the reviewer sees, edge cases like unchanged fields and empty diffs, and how to correct past invoices. An agent has nearly everything needed to call this tool correctly without further research.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds real semantics: explains that recurringId is required with no name fallback due to free-text titles and multiple schedules per customer, clarifies proposed contains ONLY changed fields, and elaborates on the status enum and lines whole-replace behavior. It does not document every nested subfield in prose, but the schema covers those, so the added semantics beyond schema is strong.

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 leads with a precise verb ('FILES A PENDING DRAFT ONLY') and names the exact resource (a pending recurring-invoice change draft in Taokeh). It distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it proposes changes to an ALREADY set up recurring invoice, and contrasts with create_recurring_invoice_draft and create_credit_note_draft. The purpose is unmistakable even without reading the 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use context: propose changes to an existing recurring invoice, including pricing, quantity, end date, cadence, or pausing. It names exclusions and alternatives: cannot set issueMode auto, status ended, MFRS 15, or touch already-issued invoices, and explicitly routes past-invoice errors to create_credit_note_draft. It also states 'One schedule per call — loop for a sweep across several,' giving clear usage boundaries.

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