Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_company

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a company from your account, stopping its billing and visibility. Fails if the company is active in production, has live invoices, or is the primary NIF.

Instructions

Removes a company from the account: it stops appearing and stops being billed.

  • Existing invoices: those already issued are retained, but the company-scoped API can no longer resolve them once the NIF is removed.

  • What blocks removal: a NIF activated in Live (409 COMPANY_ACTIVE_IN_PRODUCTION), one holding any invoice in Live — issued, draft or proforma (409 COMPANY_HAS_INVOICES) — and the account's primary NIF (400 CANNOT_DELETE_PRIMARY).

  • Deactivating first: switching off in Live is scheduled to the end of the paid cycle, so the removal only becomes possible once that takes effect.

  • Test: NIFs never activated, or activated only in Test, are removed right away, and invoices in Test never block.

  • Idempotency-Key: without one, a retry after a timeout answers 403 instead of the original 204.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • Which company an operation acts on, and how that is selected. (resource: beel://guardrails/multi-nif)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations: it names the exact blocking error codes (409 COMPANY_ACTIVE_IN_PRODUCTION, 409 COMPANY_HAS_INVOICES, 400 CANNOT_DELETE_PRIMARY), states that existing invoices are retained but unresolvable once the NIF is gone, and warns that omitting Idempotency-Key turns a retry into a 403 instead of 204.

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?

Front-loads the effect, then uses labeled bullets for blockers, deactivation timing, test behavior, and idempotency. Dense but every bullet carries decision-relevant information; only the trailing guardrail pointer feels somewhat tacked on.

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?

For a destructive single-parameter call with no output schema, the description supplies effect, blockers, error codes, idempotency semantics, and the endpoint. Nothing needed to call it safely is missing.

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 the company_id description already covers UUID format, ownership derivation, and 403 non-disclosure. The prose adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes a company from the account') plus the observable effect ('stops appearing and stops being billed'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like beel_deactivate_company and beel_delete_member.

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?

Gives real selection context: it explains that deactivation in Live is scheduled to end-of-cycle and that removal only becomes possible afterwards, and that Test NIFs are removed immediately. It never explicitly frames deactivate vs delete as a choice, but the prerequisite chain is spelled out.

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