Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_create_recurring_invoice_derivation

Create a recurring invoice template by copying lines, recipient, series, and payment data from an existing invoice. Define only the recurrence; source invoice is not modified.

Instructions

Creates a recurring invoice template of this company taking its lines, recipient, series and payment data from the invoice named in from_invoice_id, so only the recurrence has to be described. The source invoice is not modified.

Omitting verifactu_enabled inherits the value of the source invoice; send it explicitly to override that inheritance.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices/derivations

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • How BeeL derives the AEAT invoice type, and the rules each type imposes. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-types)

  • What regime_key means, where it lives, and which combinations are rejected. (resource: beel://guardrails/regime-keys)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
company_idYesNIF (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.
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.
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the source invoice is not modified, explains the inheritance behavior of verifactu_enabled, and provides fiscal guardrails. Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the burden, and it does so well. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but these are not critical for this 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a clear inheritance note, endpoint, and guardrails. It uses bullet points for the guardrails, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it defines the operation, side effects (source not modified), key parameter behavior, and points to docs for exhaustive rules. While it does not describe the response format, that is not essential given the absence of an output schema. The inclusion of endpoint and guardrails enhances completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides rich descriptions for parameters like frequency, start_date, from_invoice_id, verifactu_enabled, company_id, and idempotency_key. The description reinforces key semantics (e.g., verifactu_enabled inheritance) and clarifies that only recurrence parameters are needed. With high schema coverage, the description adds context without redundancy.

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: 'Creates a recurring invoice template of this company taking its lines, recipient, series and payment data from the invoice named in from_invoice_id'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like beel_create_recurring_invoice by noting it is a derivation that does not require series_id, invoice_type, or lines, making it unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly says 'only the recurrence has to be described', implying when to use this tool (when deriving from an existing invoice). It also contrasts with CreateRecurringInvoiceRequest, stating that alternative requires series_id, invoice_type, and lines, which this call does not carry, providing a clear exclusion. Additionally, it points to guardrails with 'read before calling' resources, giving conditional guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/beel-es/beel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server