Skip to main content
Glama
Tobeworks

invoiceshelf-mcp

by Tobeworks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_invoice

Create a new invoice for a customer by providing customer ID, dates, and line items. Automatically fills required hidden fields in InvoiceShelf, so you can issue valid invoices without knowing internal API details.

Instructions

Create a new invoice. Handles InvoiceShelf's undocumented required fields internally.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
notesNo
due_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD
customer_idYes
tax_percentNoAdds the existing tax type with this percentage (e.g. 19) on the whole invoice. Omit for no tax.
invoice_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD
template_nameNoDefaults to "tobeworks".
invoice_numberNoAuto-generated via /next-number if omitted.
reference_numberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / tax_percent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Adds the existing tax type with this percentage (e.g. 19) on the whole invoice. Omit for no tax.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but no readOnlyHint. The description adds the behavioral detail that required fields are handled internally, which is helpful. Yet it does not mention side effects (e.g., invoice status, numbering, or notifications). Given the existing annotations, the description adds some value but stays minimal.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the secondary sentence adds a meaningful detail about internal handling. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is sparse. It addresses one potential confusion (undocumented required fields) but leaves out other contextual details that might be needed, such as whether the invoice is created as a draft, how taxes are applied, or any prerequisites like authentication. The schema covers some, but the tool could benefit from more comprehensive guidance.

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 description coverage is 56%, leaving 44% of parameters undocumented. The description provides zero parameter-level guidance, and does not compensate for the schema gaps. For example, 'reference_number' and 'notes' have no schema descriptions, and the tool description does not clarify them. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already offers.

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 'Create a new invoice' clearly states the action and resource, and the verb 'create' distinguishes it from siblings like update_invoice, delete_invoice, and create_estimate. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'Handles InvoiceShelf's undocumented required fields internally' provides a usage hint that the caller doesn't need to supply certain fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'Use create_estimate for estimates') or state when to prefer this over other creation tools. Usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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