claw-mcp-toolkit

finance_invoice_generator

Create professional invoices in markdown format by specifying client details and line items with prices. This tool helps businesses generate clear billing documents for services rendered.

Instructions

Generate a simple invoice in markdown format

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": {
      "client_name": "<client_name>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "finance_invoice_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_name`	Yes	Client/company name
`items`	Yes	Comma-separated: 'MCP Server Dev:500,Consulting:200'
`currency`	No		USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'markdown format' but fails to disclose side effects (file saved vs string returned), idempotency, or what the actual output structure contains.

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?

Extremely brief (7 words), efficient with no redundancy. However, it may be overly compressed given the tool's behavioral complexity and lack of output schema.

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?

Lacks output schema and provides no description of return values (file path? markdown string?). Also omits guidance on the specific items syntax, leaving critical usage information only in the schema example.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (currency lacks description). The description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the missing currency documentation or elaborate on the specific 'Item:Amount' syntax required for the items parameter beyond the schema example.

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?

Clear verb ('Generate'), resource ('invoice'), and output format ('markdown'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling finance_expense_log or clarify this is for billing clients versus tracking expenses.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., needing client details), or when not to use it (e.g., for complex invoices requiring legal terms).

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