Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_payment_event

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetches a single payment event for a NIF's connection, revealing automatic invoicing results and actionable failure codes. Returns 404 for events not belonging to the connection to avoid disclosure.

Instructions

Retrieves a single payment event of the NIF's connection, including the outcome of its automatic invoicing and, when it failed, the stable failure code you can act on.

  • Not found: an event that does not belong to this NIF's connection returns 404, the same answer an event that does not exist gets, so an event of another NIF is never disclosed.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections/{connection_id}/events/{event_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesIdentifier of the payment event, as returned by the list operation.
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the events belong to — 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.
connection_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the payment connection the operation acts on, as returned by `GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections`. A NIF can hold several connections of the same provider, so the provider slug alone does not name one. A connection of another NIF answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / connection_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Unique identifier (UUID) of the payment connection the operation acts on, as returned by `GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections`. A NIF can hold several connections of the same provider, so the provider slug alone does not name one. A connection of another NIF answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Payment provider slug in **lowercase**. Currently only `stripe` (Stripe Connect) is\noperative; `woocommerce` and `shopify` are reserved for future providers.\n",
-  "enum": [
-    "stripe"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "company_id",
-  "provider",
-  "event_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "company_id",
+  "connection_id",
+  "event_id"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) the events belong to. 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 events belong to — 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."
  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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description's real contribution is the 404 disclosure rule: an event belonging to another NIF's connection is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one, which tells the agent how to interpret a miss. It also characterizes the returned content (invoicing outcome, failure code), which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 operation's purpose, then a tight bullet on not-found semantics, then the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place; the only mild redundancy is the endpoint line, which restates the path already implied by the schema's three IDs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does supply the essential return context (invoicing outcome, stable failure code) and the key error semantics for 404. It stops short of describing pagination-free single-fetch guarantees or the shape of the failure code, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 parameter descriptions are unusually rich (UUID formats, cross-NIF 404/403 behavior, header irrelevance), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieves a single payment event') and goes further by naming the payload's value: the automatic invoicing outcome and, on failure, the stable failure code. The word 'single' contrasts implicitly with the sibling beel_list_payment_events, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it already has an event_id from a list operation (the schema makes that link). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the adjacent siblings that act on the same resource (beel_retry_payment_event, beel_resolve_payment_event, beel_discard_payment_event).

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