moxie-mcp

apply_payment

Apply a payment to an existing invoice by specifying invoice number, amount, and date. Optionally include payment method, reference, or memo.

Instructions

Apply a payment to an existing invoice

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": {
      "invoiceNumber": "<invoiceNumber>",
      "amount": "<amount>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "apply_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	Yes	Date of payment (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`memo`	No	Notes about the payment
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount
`clientName`	No	Client name (required only if duplicate invoice numbers exist)
`paymentType`	No	Payment method type
`invoiceNumber`	Yes	Invoice number to apply payment to (e.g., E-2023-79)
`referenceNumber`	No	Informational reference number for payment history

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'apply,' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., marking invoice as paid, reversing possibility, required permissions). This is insufficient for a financial action.

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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and scannable.

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 the complexity (7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or concurrency implications for payment application.

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 all 7 parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Apply a payment to an existing invoice' clearly states the verb ('apply') and resource ('payment to an existing invoice'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools, none of which handle payment application.

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 (e.g., search_payable_invoices). No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.

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