pennylane-mcp-server

pennylane_create_billing_subscription

Create a recurring billing subscription in Pennylane by supplying a customer, start date, recurrence rule, payment terms, method, and invoice lines.

Instructions

Crée un nouvel abonnement de facturation récurrente. Nécessite un client, une date de début, une règle de récurrence et des lignes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Mode de facturation : {'type': 'email', 'email_settings': {...}} ou {'type': 'awaiting_validation'} ou {'type': 'finalized'}.
`label`	No	Libellé de l'abonnement.
`start`	Yes	Date de début de l'abonnement (YYYY-MM-DD).
`customer_id`	Yes	ID du client.
`invoice_lines`	Yes	Lignes de facturation. Chaque ligne : {label: str, quantity: number, raw_currency_unit_price: str, unit: str, vat_rate: str, product_id?: int, description?: str}.
`payment_method`	Yes	Méthode de paiement : 'offline' ou 'gocardless_direct_debit'.
`recurring_rule`	Yes	Règle de récurrence. Ex: {'type': 'monthly', 'interval': 1} ou {'type': 'yearly', 'interval': 1, 'day_of_month': 1}. Types: 'weekly', 'monthly', 'yearly'.
`payment_conditions`	Yes	Conditions de paiement : 'upon_receipt', '7_days', '15_days', '30_days', '30_days_end_of_month', '45_days', '45_days_end_of_month', '60_days'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent mutation of external state. The description adds the 'recurring' nature but nothing about required permissions, validation/mode behavior, or side effects on the customer. No contradiction, but limited added value.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded before the requirements. The second sentence slightly restates schema-required fields, so it is not perfectly waste-free, but overall it is tight and readable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain returns or parameter details. For an 8-parameter, nested-object creation tool it covers the essentials; only a hint about the mode default or validation flow is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter (mode, label, start, customer_id, invoice_lines, payment_method, recurring_rule, payment_conditions). The description names the required fields, which lightly overlaps but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Crée un nouvel abonnement de facturation récurrente' (creates a new recurring billing subscription). This clearly distinguishes it from the get/list/update subscription siblings via the create verb. No sibling is explicitly named, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives (e.g., vs update_billing_subscription). The second sentence only enumerates required inputs ('un client, une date de début, une règle de récurrence et des lignes'), which is prerequisite information rather than usage direction.

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

Deploy Server