suprsonic-mcp

invoice-parse

Extract structured data from invoice PDFs and images via URL, converting them into usable fields for automated accounting and record-keeping.

Instructions

Extract structured data from invoices and receipts. Cost: 3 credits.

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": {
      "document_url": "<document_url>"
    },
    "name": "invoice-parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_url`	Yes	URL to invoice PDF/image.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.1Oct 7, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / document_url / description
```
Previous value: -"URL to invoice PDF or image"New value: +"URL to invoice PDF/image."
```
First observedv0.3.0May 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 3-credit cost, but says nothing about supported inputs beyond the schema, latency, error behavior, or what 'structured data' means as an output. For a paid extraction tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost noted second. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the shape of the returned structured data and any input limits. It instead stops at purpose plus price, leaving the agent without the information needed to interpret results or anticipate failures.

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% and the single parameter (document_url, 'URL to invoice PDF/image') is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail, so 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: 'Extract structured data from invoices and receipts.' The scope (invoices/receipts) is clear and distinguishable from most siblings like transcribe or file-convert. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the closest siblings (documents, scrape), so it stops short of a 5.

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 versus alternatives (documents, scrape, file-convert), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only contextual information is the credit cost, which is pricing 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