Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_delete_recurring_invoice

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a recurring invoice template and cancel pending scheduled generations without affecting invoices already generated.

Instructions

Permanently deletes a recurring invoice template of this company and cancels any pending scheduled generations. Invoices already generated from it are not affected.

Endpoint: DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices/{recurring_invoice_id}

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • How BeeL derives the AEAT invoice type, and the rules each type imposes. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-types)

  • What regime_key means, where it lives, and which combinations are rejected. (resource: beel://guardrails/regime-keys)

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.
recurring_invoice_idYes

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: the operation is permanent, cancels pending scheduled generations, and does not affect already-generated invoices. The fiscal guardrails pointers also set expectations about domain constraints. No contradiction with annotations was found.

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 compact, front-loads the primary effect, and then adds the endpoint and guardrail pointers in a scannable format. Every sentence contributes either behavioral meaning or a necessary caution.

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 two-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete: it explains permanence, side effects, and non-effects, and points to fiscal guardrail resources. It does not mention response conventions or not-found behavior, but no output schema exists and those are minor for a delete action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented recurring_invoice_id parameter. The endpoint line repeats the parameter names but adds no meaning. company_id is well described in the schema, but recurring_invoice_id remains undefined beyond a bare UUID type and format.

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 names a precise resource and action: 'Permanently deletes a recurring invoice template' and 'cancels any pending scheduled generations.' It also clarifies scope by stating that already-generated invoices are not affected, distinguishing it from delete_invoice and delete_invoice_schedule without opening their schemas.

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?

The description implies usage: it is for deleting recurring templates, not individual invoices, and clarifies the effect on scheduled generations. However, it never explicitly contrasts alternatives such as beel_set_recurring_invoice_status or beel_skip_recurring_invoice, so when-to-use versus alternatives is left mostly to inference.

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