Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_invoice

Generate an invoice using a legacy two-step billable items and challenge-token flow. Provide a matter ID and optional dates.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Generate an invoice via the legacy two-step billable-items + challenge-token flow. That flow was /api/v2-only and fails loudly here. Use create_invoice with the /v1 invoice body instead.

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": {
      "matter_id": "<matter_id>"
    },
    "name": "generate_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_dateNo
due_dateNo
matter_idYes
invoice_dateNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that the tool is legacy, two-step, and fails loudly. This is transparent about its deprecated and non-functional state. However, it does not specify the exact nature of the failure (e.g., error message).

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the deprecation warning and alternative, making it efficient for agent decision-making.

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?

Given the tool is deprecated and non-functional, the description is complete: it warns against use and provides the correct alternative. The output schema exists but is irrelevant since the tool fails.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the description adds no information about parameters. The agent gets no guidance on how or why to use parameters.

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?

The description explicitly states that the tool generates an invoice via a legacy two-step flow, which is /api/v2-only and fails loudly. It distinguishes itself from siblings by advising to use create_invoice instead.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Directly instructs the agent to use create_invoice with the /v1 invoice body instead, providing clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also notes that the legacy flow fails loudly, reinforcing the recommendation.

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