Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_invoice_schedule

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes an invoice's scheduled status, reverting it to a plain draft. Idempotent: returns 204 even if the invoice is not scheduled.

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

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • Fiscal rules, domains lifecycle, void, corrective: beel_rules_list with domain, or resource beel://guardrails/.

  • The status names, the proforma lifecycle, and which tool performs each operation. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-state-machine)

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: the concrete `204` response on an unscheduled invoice and the `scheduled_invoices` feature caveat that separates it from the PUT. It does not describe confirmation requirements or rate limits, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and tight, but the '⚠️ Read before calling' block is generic boilerplate and contains a sentence fragment ('The status names, the proforma lifecycle, and which tool performs each operation.') that lacks a verb and adds noise rather than routing value.

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, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers the resulting state, idempotency behavior, and the feature difference from the PUT, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. Minor gaps remain (auth/permission specifics), but the essentials are present.

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 well documented in the schema (company_id even explains 403 masking). The description adds nothing about the two parameters, so the baseline of 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 the scheduling of an invoice') plus the resulting state ('returning it to a plain draft'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling PUT endpoint by noting it does not require the `scheduled_invoices` feature. An agent can tell this apart from beel_set_invoice_schedule without opening either schema.

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 clear context: this unschedules while keeping the invoice as a draft, is safe to call on an already-unscheduled invoice, and has a lighter feature requirement than the PUT. It stops short of explicitly routing against other alternatives (e.g. beel_delete_invoice) or stating when deletion is preferred over unscheduling.

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