Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_create_invoice_delivery

Idempotent

Send multiple invoice PDFs in one email by specifying recipients and invoice IDs. Avoids separate emails, reports failed attachments, and still delivers the rest.

Instructions

Sends one email carrying the PDFs of several invoices of this company as attachments.

  • recipients: required, and must carry at least one address; no address is inferred from any profile.

  • Limit: up to 200 invoices per message (invoice_ids).

  • Failures: invoices whose PDF cannot be attached are reported in failures, and the message is still sent with the rest.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/deliveries

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for this operation. Omit it and one is derived from the request itself, which makes a blind retry safe but also collapses a SECOND, deliberately identical operation into the first for 24 hours. Set it — to an order id, or anything unique per intended operation — whenever you mean to create something that may look identical to what you just created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs / CreateInvoiceDeliveryRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / Email / example
      Removed value: -"user@example.com"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / Language / example
      Removed value: -"es"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / UUID / example
      Removed value: -"550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) the operation acts on. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: partial failures are tolerated and reported in 'failures', the message is still sent with the rest, and no recipient address is inferred from any profile. These details are not present in the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, etc.), so the description genuinely informs the agent about edge-case behaviors.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a single clear purpose sentence followed by three tagged bullet points covering key constraints (recipients, limit, failures) and the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. Information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to grasp the essentials quickly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the essential operational constraints: required recipients, maximum invoice count, and failure handling. It also includes the endpoint for reference. However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., what other fields are returned besides 'failures'), but since there is no output schema, some missing details are acceptable. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents most parameters with descriptions (company_id, idempotency_key, and the nested body properties). The description adds extra clarity for recipients (required, no inference) and the 200-invoice limit, which are partially covered in schema but reinforced here. With schema coverage at 67%, the description provides some compensation, but it does not elaborate on all parameters, leaving the bulk of semantics to the schema. This is a balanced score.

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 clearly states the specific action: 'Sends one email carrying the PDFs of several invoices of this company as attachments.' It identifies the resource (invoices) and the operation (sending via email), and distinguishes from likely siblings like beel_send_invoice by emphasizing 'several invoices' in one message. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like beel_send_invoice or beel_get_invoice_pdf. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools. While it implies batch usage by saying 'several invoices,' there is no direct comparison or decision guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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