Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_customer

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a customer that has no invoices, freeing their tax identifier for reuse. If invoices or recurring invoices exist, deactivate the customer instead.

Instructions

Deletes a customer of this company that has no invoices.

  • What deleting means: the customer is retained internally for tax record-keeping purposes, but is no longer exposed by the API: subsequent requests to it return 404, and it is never included in the customer list, under any value of the active filter.

  • Identifier released: its NIF or alternative identifier is freed, so a new customer may be created with the same identifier.

  • Customers with invoices: they cannot be deleted and the request answers 409 CLIENT_HAS_INVOICES. To stop using a customer, update it with active set to false instead of deleting it.

  • Customers used by a recurring invoice: while an active or paused recurring invoice has the customer as its recipient, the request answers 400 REFERENCED_BY_RECURRING_INVOICE.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/customers/{customer_id}

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.
customer_idYesCustomer ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • 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."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that deletion is a soft delete retained for tax records, that the record returns 404 and is excluded from every `active` filter, that the NIF is released for reuse, and it documents the 409 CLIENT_HAS_INVOICES and 400 REFERENCED_BY_RECURRING_INVOICE error codes.

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?

Bold-labeled bullets make the consequences front-loaded and scannable, and each bullet carries distinct information (soft-delete behavior, identifier release, two error paths, the patch alternative). Slightly long, but no sentence is 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?

For a destructive delete with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: exact semantics, downstream visibility effects, identifier reuse, and the full set of failure modes with status codes.

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 100% and both path parameters are fully documented in the schema (including the company_id context/disclosure semantics). The description adds only the endpoint path shape, not new meaning for the parameters themselves, 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 (Deletes), resource (a customer of this company) and a scope constraint (that has no invoices) that immediately separates it from siblings like beel_delete_customers_bulk and beel_delete_member. The endpoint line reinforces the exact operation.

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?

Explicitly names the when-not condition (customers with invoices cannot be deleted) and supplies the alternative action (update with `active` set to `false`). It also flags a second blocking case, recurring-invoice recipients, so the agent knows exactly when to pick a different path.

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