Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_create_invoice_delivery

Idempotent

Send one email with up to 200 company invoice PDFs attached to given recipients, and report any invoices whose files could not be attached.

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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • changedInput schema / $defs / Language / description
      Previous value: -"Supported languages"New value: +"Supported languages: `es` Spanish, `en` English, `ca` Catalan.\n"
  2. 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."
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new behavior in the partial-failure contract ('invoices whose PDF cannot be attached are reported in `failures`, and the message is still sent with the rest') plus the 'no address is inferred from any profile' rule. It does not discuss rate limits or the external-send consequences implied by openWorldHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then three tight bullets that each carry a distinct constraint (required recipients, the 200 cap, failure semantics). The trailing endpoint line is slightly redundant given the tool name but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by documenting the `failures` field of the result, which an agent needs to interpret a partial send. Still missing: whether the call is synchronous, what identifies the created delivery for later retrieval, and any permission prerequisites beyond the 403 note that lives in the schema.

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 coverage is a moderate 67%, and the description largely restates what the schema already encodes (recipients minItems=1, invoice_ids maxItems=200) rather than adding meaning. The optional parameters (cc, subject, message, language, idempotency_key) — including cc's subtle quota/default behavior — are left entirely to the schema.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource ('Sends one email carrying the PDFs of several invoices ... as attachments'), and the plural scope implicitly contrasts with the single-invoice beel_send_invoice sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or any other alternative, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the constraints ('up to 200 invoices per message'), which tells the agent this is the bulk-delivery path, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of beel_send_invoice for single-invoice delivery or of beel_list_email_deliveries for follow-up.

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