BeeL MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

beel_delete_products_bulk

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete up to 100 catalog product IDs per request for a specified company and receive a summary of deleted products and per-product errors.

Instructions

Deletes the products listed in ids from the catalog of this company, up to 100 IDs per request; send several requests for more.

Partial operation: the response reports which products were deleted (deleted_products) and which failed (errors, one entry per product with its product_id), with the counts in summary. That is why it answers 200 with a body instead of 204.

BeeL API endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/products/bulk (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>",
      "ids": "<ids>"
    },
    "name": "beel_delete_products_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Comma-separated product IDs (max 100 per request)
`company_id`	Yes	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0Aug 30, 2026

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."

removedInput schema / properties / ids / example

Removed value: -"550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000,550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440001"

First observedv0.3.1Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait: the operation can partially succeed, with `deleted_products`, per-product `errors` keyed by `product_id`, and counts in `summary`. It even explains why the endpoint returns 200 with a body instead of 204, which annotations cannot convey.

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-loaded with the action and the batch limit, then a short bullet explaining the partial-result semantics. The trailing endpoint URL and docs reference are mildly redundant with the tool name but still useful for traceability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return fields and their meaning. Combined with the destructive annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured data. The description restates the 100-ID cap on `ids` but adds no new syntax or edge-case meaning for `company_id`, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: deletes the products listed in `ids` from the catalog of this company. It is clearly distinguishable from the single-item sibling beel_delete_product and from beel_delete_customers_bulk by naming the exact resource and endpoint (DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/products/bulk).

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?

It gives concrete batching guidance — 'up to 100 IDs per request; send several requests for more' — which tells the agent when to loop versus when one call suffices. It stops short of explicitly routing single-product deletions to beel_delete_product, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server