SyncroMSP MCP Server

invoices_convert_to_draft

Reopens a published invoice as an editable draft for revisions before re-publication; requires draft capability and rejects records already paid, posted, or refunded.

Instructions

Turn a published invoice back into a draft so it can be edited before re-publishing. Needs draft invoices turned on for the account (404 otherwise). Syncro refuses (422) if a payment has been applied, the invoice was posted to an accounting provider, or it is a refund.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "invoices_convert_to_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Published invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.10.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the state mutation (published to draft), a required account setting with a 404 failure mode, and specific 422 refusal conditions. It does not mention permission scope or what a successful response contains, but the key behavioral constraints are covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by prerequisites and failure conditions. Every clause is useful and there is no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides purpose, prerequisites, and refusal conditions needed to invoke it correctly. Return values are not essential here because no output schema exists.

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 id parameter is already documented as the published invoice ID. The description adds no additional parameter syntax or format meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: turning a published invoice back into a draft. It clearly distinguishes the operation from siblings such as invoices_publish by describing the opposite direction and the reason for doing it (editing before re-publishing).

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use context (to edit before re-publishing) and detailed when-not-to-use conditions: the account setting must be enabled, and Syncro refuses if a payment is applied, the invoice was posted to accounting, or it is a refund. This is unusually strong routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server