Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_create_recurring_invoice_derivation

Idempotent

Create a recurring invoice template from an existing invoice, reusing its lines, recipient, series, and payment data. Only define the recurrence schedule.

Instructions

Creates a recurring invoice template of this company taking its lines, recipient, series and payment data from an existing invoice, so only the recurrence has to be described.

  • from_invoice_id: the source invoice. It must belong to the company in the path, and one you cannot reach is reported the same way as one that does not exist. It is not modified by this call.

  • Recurrence: name, day_of_month and start_date are required; end_date is optional.

  • VeriFactu: omitting verifactu_enabled inherits the value of the source invoice. Send true or false 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_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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs / CreateRecurringInvoiceDerivationRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the source invoice is not modified, that unreachable source invoices are reported like missing ones, and that VeriFactu is inherited unless explicitly overridden. This adds real behavioral context for a creating operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with bullets and front-loaded intent, but several points duplicate information already present in the input schema, such as from_invoice_id behavior and VeriFactu inheritance. It earns its place mostly through the guardrail pointers.

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?

It supplies the endpoint, critical fiscal guardrail resources, and a pointer to exhaustive docs, which is appropriate for a domain-sensitive create operation. It lacks an explicit return-value description and alternative-tool differentiation, but the schema and annotations fill most remaining gaps.

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?

With only 67% schema coverage, the description usefully highlights which recurrence fields are required and explains the VeriFactu inheritance rule. It compensates for the partial schema descriptions, though some params like send_automatically are left to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it creates a recurring invoice template and explains that lines, recipient, series, and payment data are copied from an existing invoice. This clearly distinguishes it from a plain recurring-invoice creation tool.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use it: when a recurring template must be derived from an existing invoice rather than built from scratch. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, so it falls just short of full 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

Other Tools