Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_fiscal_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve VAT and IRPF summaries for invoices issued in a period, with annual IRPF projection and progressive bracket breakdown. Provide start and end dates together; omit both for current month.

Instructions

Returns the VAT and IRPF summary of the invoices issued under this company over the requested period, together with the annual IRPF projection and its progressive bracket breakdown. start_date and end_date go together: send both, or neither. Omitting both defaults to the current month; sending only one answers 400, because a period you did not ask for is worse than an error. The range may not exceed 365 days, and every fault names itself in details.reason.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/fiscal-summary

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNoPeriod end date (inclusive), as `YYYY-MM-DD`. Goes together with `start_date`: supply both or neither. Omitting both defaults to the current month; supplying only one is rejected with `400` (`PERIOD_INCOMPLETE`).
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.
start_dateNoPeriod start date (inclusive), as `YYYY-MM-DD`. Goes together with `end_date`: supply both or neither. Omitting both defaults to the current month; supplying only one is rejected with `400` (`PERIOD_INCOMPLETE`).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / end_date / description
      Previous value: -"Period end date (inclusive). Format: YYYY-MM-DD"New value: +"Period end date (inclusive), as `YYYY-MM-DD`. Goes together with `start_date`:\nsupply both or neither. Omitting both defaults to the current month; supplying\nonly one is rejected with `400` (`PERIOD_INCOMPLETE`).\n"
    • changedInput schema / properties / start_date / description
      Previous value: -"Period start date (inclusive). Format: YYYY-MM-DD"New value: +"Period start date (inclusive), as `YYYY-MM-DD`. Goes together with `end_date`:\nsupply both or neither. Omitting both defaults to the current month; supplying\nonly one is rejected with `400` (`PERIOD_INCOMPLETE`).\n"
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the bar for added behavioral context is lower; the description still adds substantial behavior: period coupling, default to current month, 400 on incomplete range, 365-day cap, and error details in details.reason. No contradiction.

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?

The return summary is front-loaded and the parameter rules are compact. However, the period rules largely duplicate the schema descriptions and the endpoint line repeats obvious wiring, adding minor redundancy.

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?

The description covers invocation rules and error behavior and sketches the return contents, which compensates for the missing output schema at a conceptual level. It does not enumerate the response fields, but for a read-only summary with 3 parameters this is sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the 365-day range cap and reinforces the both-or-neither rule, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 specific resource ('fiscal summary' for the company), a specific verb ('Returns'), and enumerates the exact contents: VAT and IRPF summary, annual IRPF projection, and bracket breakdown. This is clearly distinct from any sibling get_/list_ tool, even without naming one.

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 defines when to call by describing the output and the date-period rules, including defaults and 400 behavior. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but no obvious alternative exists for this resource.

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