Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-smallinvoice

mcp-server-smallinvoice

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_invoice_payment

Destructive

Delete payments from an invoice by providing the invoice ID and a comma-separated list of payment IDs. Removes one or multiple payment records.

Instructions

Deletes specified invoice's payments

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>",
      "payment_ids": "<payment_ids>"
    },
    "name": "delete_invoice_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYesinvoice ID
payment_idsYespayment IDs (comma separated)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'deletes' is consistent. No additional behavioral details (e.g., effects on invoice, permanence) are provided, but annotations cover the core trait.

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?

Single sentence is highly concise and gets straight to the point. Could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but as is, it's efficient.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and simple parameters, description lacks details on return values, idempotency, or prerequisites (e.g., invoice existence). Leaves gaps for an agent to infer crucial behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it deletes invoices' payments, distinguishing it from other delete tools that target different resources. However, it does not explicitly mention that multiple payments can be deleted via comma-separated IDs, leaving slight ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_invoice_payment or record_invoice_payment. The description provides no context for selection among siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools