Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Invio Xero MCP

by nz.co.invio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

post_xero_pay_run

post_xero_pay_run
Destructive

Proposes moving an EXISTING DRAFT pay run to POSTED, Australian organisations only (this refuses plainly for New Zealand and the United Kingdom - Xero has no documented way to post a pay run for either region through its API). It does NOT touch Xero itself, and never will on its own - this queues a pending change that a human must explicitly approve (your Xero MCP connector - the exact link is this response's own approvalUrl field). THIS CANNOT BE UNDONE ONCE APPROVED: Xero's own Payroll API has no way to move a POSTED pay run back to DRAFT, ever - tell the user this plainly before they approve it, in these words, not a softened version. POSTING A PAY RUN DOES NOT LODGE ANYTHING WITH THE ATO AND DOES NOT PAY ANYONE - Single Touch Payroll lodgement, and the actual bank transfer to employees, both happen entirely outside this connector, through whatever process this business already uses; say so if asked whether wages have "gone out" or been "reported" - this tool cannot know either. confirm must be true, set only after the person has explicitly said, in their own words, to post this specific pay run.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmYesMust be true. Set this ONLY after the person using this account has explicitly said, in their own words, to post this specific pay run - posting cannot be undone through Xero's API once approved, never infer consent from context.
payRunIdYesGet this from list_xero_pay_runs or get_xero_pay_run_summary - must currently be DRAFT.
organisationNoThe Xero organisation to use, by its display name. Only needed if this connection reaches more than one organisation - omit it when there is only one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / payRunId / pattern
      Added value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains this queues a pending change rather than touching Xero, that posting is irreversible through Xero's Payroll API, and that STP lodgement and wage payment happen entirely outside the connector. It also warns that regions NZ/UK will refuse plainly, which is a real behavioral trait an agent needs before calling.

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?

It is long, but the length is earned: purpose and scope are front-loaded, then irreversibility, then the STP/payment misconceptions. A couple of meta-instructions to the agent ('in these words, not a softened version') are borderline but serve the destructive nature of the call.

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 destructive, irreversible, queued mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: region restriction, the approval queue model, irreversibility, and the downstream processes this tool does not perform. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters including the explicit-consent semantics for confirm and the DRAFT precondition for payRunId. The description reinforces consent and region scoping but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('moving an EXISTING DRAFT pay run to POSTED') and draws a hard boundary against create_xero_pay_run by insisting the pay run already exists. The regional limitation (AU only; refuses NZ/UK) further pins down what the tool will and won't do.

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?

Preconditions are explicit: the pay run must currently be DRAFT, confirm must be true only after explicit user consent, and organisation is omitted when only one org is reachable. It frames the follow-on approval step ('a human must explicitly approve' via approvalUrl) but never names the sibling approve_xero_pending_change tool directly, leaving that hop to inference.

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

All Invio Xero MCP 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