Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_change_managed_access_level

Update the access level you hold over a provisioned account, choosing NONE, VIEW, or OPERATE. Lower or keep access after the holder claims it; raising requires unclaimed status.

Instructions

Updates the access_level you keep over an account you provisioned.

  • Raising it: only possible while the account is unclaimed. Once its holder has taken ownership you may keep or lower your access, but only they can raise it.

  • Billing: the level never affects it — you pay for the account's subscription at any level.

  • OPERATE: issuing invoices on the holder's behalf additionally requires a signed fiscal representation from them.

  • Entitlement: requires manage_accounts.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/accounts/{account_id}/access-level

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
account_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / AccessLevel / description
      Previous value: -"How much access an actor has to an account or a company (NIF). The same three values are used everywhere access is granted or reported — whether the actor is a member of the account or a provisioner managing it on someone's behalf.\n\n`NONE` — no access to the data.\n`VIEW` — read invoices, customers, products, series and fiscal data.\n`OPERATE` — everything in `VIEW`, plus creating and editing them. Issuing invoices for an account you manage additionally requires a signed fiscal representation from the account holder (see `/v1/accounts/{account_id}/companies/{company_id}/representation`).\n\nAccess level never affects billing: whoever provisioned an account pays for its subscription regardless of the level they keep over it."New value: +"How much access an actor has to an account or a company. The same three values are used everywhere access is granted or reported — whether the actor is a member of the account or a provisioner managing it on someone's behalf.\n\n`NONE` — no access to the data.\n`VIEW` — read invoices, customers, products, series and fiscal data.\n`OPERATE` — everything in `VIEW`, plus creating and editing them. Issuing invoices for an account you manage additionally requires a signed fiscal representation from the account holder (see `/v1/accounts/{account_id}/companies/{company_id}/representation`).\n\nAccess level never affects billing: whoever provisioned an account pays for its subscription regardless of the level they keep over it."
    • addedInput schema / $defs / ChangeAccessLevelRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the claiming constraint, the irrelevance of access level to billing, the extra fiscal representation requirement for OPERATE, and the manage_accounts entitlement. This is substantial behavioral disclosure that an agent needs to set correct expectations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses four focused bullets for constraints plus the endpoint. Every sentence contributes meaningful operational detail without redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the key state-dependent behavior, the billing implication, entitlement, and a special-case requirement. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate results.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Although the top-level schema coverage is reported as 0%, the schema's AccessLevel definition itself documents NONE/VIEW/OPERATE. The description adds critical semantic constraints around those values: raising vs. lowering, unclaimed vs. claimed, and the OPERATE representation condition. account_id is adequately covered by its uuid format.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Updates the access_level you keep over an account you provisioned.' This clearly distinguishes the tool as managing a provisioned account's access level, separating it from sibling tools like beel_put_member_grant or beel_end_management.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives strong contextual guidance: raising is only allowed while unclaimed, lowering is always available to the provisioner, and OPERATE has an extra representation requirement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it gives enough operational context to know when this tool applies.

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