Tripletex MCP Server

approve_supplier_invoice

Approve supplier invoices in Tripletex by providing the invoice ID and optional comment to process payments and maintain financial records.

Instructions

Approve a supplier 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": {
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "approve_supplier_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoiceId`	Yes	Supplier invoice ID to approve
`comment`	No	Optional approval comment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., invoice status changes, notifications sent), permissions required, whether approval is reversible, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after approval (e.g., invoice moves to paid status, triggers payment), error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks critical context for proper invocation.

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 fully documents both parameters (invoiceId and comment). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('approve') and resource ('supplier invoice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reject_supplier_invoice' by specifying approval action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'approve_supplier_invoices' (plural).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., invoice must be in pending state), when not to use it, or how it differs from 'approve_supplier_invoices' (batch approval). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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