Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_deactivate_company

DestructiveIdempotent

Deactivate a company in TEST or PROD. Live schedules the switch-off at the billing cycle's end; TEST applies immediately, preserving invoicing history.

Instructions

Switches the company off in the mode given by environment; the other mode is untouched.

  • Sealed, not deleted: the activation's history survives. After the switch-off takes effect the NIF can neither issue nor correct invoices in that mode until it is switched on again, and in Live that sealing is what releases the NIF for another account.

When it takes effect

  • In Live the switch-off is scheduled, not immediate: the cycle is paid up front, so the response carries an effective_at and the NIF keeps invoicing until then. Nothing is refunded. effective_at is the end of the current billing cycle, unless the NIF was switched on within that same cycle, in which case it is the end of the next one.

  • TEST, and PROD under an enterprise contract: immediate, and answer with no effective_at.

Repeats and permissions

  • Repeating the call: on a mode whose switch-off is already pending it returns the same date with already_scheduled: true; switching off a mode that was never on is a silent no-op.

  • Permission: switching off in Live requires being the billing subject of the account.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/activations

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company being switched 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.
environmentYesMode to switch the NIF off in.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behavior: Live switch-off is scheduled with effective_at, nothing is refunded, TEST/PROD are immediate, repeats return already_scheduled or a silent no-op, and Live requires billing-subject permission. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs.

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 with a direct lead sentence followed by scannable, headed bullets. Each section covers a distinct behavioral aspect—sealing, timing, repeats, permissions—without redundancy or filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description names the key response signals (effective_at, already_scheduled), explains the no-op case, details timing per environment, and states permissions. An agent receives enough information to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the outcome.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description reinforces the environment semantics and adds Live-specific permission context, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Switches the company off in the mode given by environment; the other mode is untouched.' It also draws a clear line against deletion ('Sealed, not deleted'), which distinguishes it from both beel_activate_company and beel_delete_company.

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 provides clear usage context, including mode-specific scheduling, repeated-call behavior, and the Live permission requirement. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state a when-not-to-use condition, but the mode-scoped semantics are strong enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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