Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_invoice_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an invoice's scheduled submission and turn it back into a plain draft. Works even when no schedule is set.

Instructions

Removes the scheduling of an invoice, returning it to a plain draft. Idempotent: an invoice that is not scheduled answers 204 all the same. Unlike the PUT, it does not require the scheduled_invoices feature.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/{invoice_id}/schedule

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • When an invoice can still be changed, and what to do once it cannot. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-state-machine)

  • Choosing wrong here misreports to AEAT. The 30-second decision. (resource: beel://guardrails/cancel-vs-rectify)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

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.
invoice_idYesInvoice 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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: idempotency with a concrete 204 response, the fact that the scheduled_invoices feature is not required, and critical fiscal consequences if misused. The destructiveHint annotation covers the destructive nature, and the description enriches it without contradicting it.

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 efficiently structured: core purpose first, then idempotency, feature differences, endpoint, and critical warnings. Every sentence earns its place, and the risk callouts are clearly separated with line breaks rather than buried in prose.

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 destructive fiscal operation with no output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: idempotency, feature requirements, success response, and guardrail resources. It does not enumerate all error cases, but the schema handles some of that and the docs-search pointer covers exhaustive rules.

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%, so this dimension starts at baseline 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the endpoint path, and the schema already explains company_id and invoice_id adequately.

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-resource pair ('Removes the scheduling of an invoice, returning it to a plain draft') and includes the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from related operations like the PUT schedule endpoint and beel_delete_invoice.

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 context for when the tool applies and explicitly contrasts it with the PUT alternative by noting the feature requirement difference. It does not name sibling tools directly or list explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the guardrails and docs-search pointer give strong practical 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