Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BeeL MCP server

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_product

DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a product from a company’s catalog so it no longer appears in listings or can be read, while existing invoice lines remain unchanged.

Instructions

Deletes a product from the catalog of this company. It no longer appears in the list and reading it answers 404. Invoices already created keep their lines unchanged: a line copies its data and does not point to the product.

BeeL API endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/products/{product_id} (reference: https://docs.beel.es)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>",
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "beel_delete_product"
  }
}

Input 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.
product_idYesProduct unique UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • 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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real value beyond them: post-deletion reads return 404 and existing invoice lines are preserved because lines copy data rather than reference the product. That tells the agent what is and is not destroyed, which is the key risk question for a delete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediate effect, followed by the side-effect caveat; nothing is padded. The trailing endpoint/URL metadata is reference material rather than instruction, which is a minor use of space.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect, the read consequence, and the historical-data consequence, which is what an agent needs before invoking it. It leaves unaddressed whether other artifacts (recurring invoice templates, series defaults) referencing the product are affected, and it does not flag irreversibility explicitly.

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 explains tenant scoping and the 403 behavior in detail. The description text itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus the scope ('from the catalog of this company'), so an agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not name the close sibling beel_delete_products_bulk or explain how it differs, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description of the effect (product gone, 404 afterwards), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the bulk deletion alternative for multiple products. The agent must infer the right moment to call it.

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