Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_invitation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single account invitation by UUID to view its current status, including accepted, revoked, or expired records, for auditing who was granted fiscal data access.

Instructions

Returns one invitation of the account, with the same shape the list returns. An invitation stays readable for its whole life: ACCEPTED, REVOKED and EXPIRED ones are returned with their status, because the record is the trail of who was granted access to the account's fiscal data and revoking it does not erase it.

Endpoint: GET /v1/accounts/{account_id}/invitations/{invitation_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYesYour own account, or an account you provisioned. It — not the credential — decides which account the operation acts on; a `403` is returned when you do not reach it, the same response an account that does not exist gets.
invitation_idYesIdentifier (UUID) of an invitation of the account in the path, as returned when it is created or listed. An invitation of another account answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / invitation_id / description
      Added value: +"Identifier (UUID) of an invitation of the account in the path, as returned when it is created or listed. An invitation of another account answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: invitations remain readable for their whole life and revoking does not erase the record, so an agent should not expect a 404 for ACCEPTED/REVOKED/EXPIRED items.

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-loads what the tool returns, then justifies the lifetime behavior in one sentence, with the endpoint last. The rationale clause ("because the record is the trail of who was granted access...") is slightly verbose for a getter but is the only real padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden; it addresses this by pointing at the list's shape and enumerating the statuses returned. That is enough for a simple read tool, though the exact returned fields remain only indirectly described.

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%, with both parameters fully documented including the 403/404 semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g. format, scoping), so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Returns one invitation of the account") and pins the cardinality, implicitly distinguishing it from beel_list_invitations by noting it returns the same shape the list does. It never names the sibling or the alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 (fetch a single invitation by its ID) but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over beel_list_invitations or beel_get_member. The lifetime note helps an agent know a revoked/expired ID is still worth fetching, which is useful but not framed as guidance.

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