Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_payment_event

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a payment event to check the automatic invoicing outcome and, if failed, get a stable failure code you can act on for quick resolution.

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/{provider}/events/{event_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesIdentifier of the payment event, as returned by the list operation.
providerYesPayment provider slug in **lowercase**. Currently only `stripe` (Stripe Connect) is operative; `woocommerce` and `shopify` are reserved for future providers.
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.

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 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."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses a meaningful security behavior: events belonging to another NIF return 404 just like nonexistent events, preventing disclosure. It also reveals that failed automatic invoicing returns a stable, actionable failure code. This adds value beyond the structured hints.

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 and front-loaded: the main purpose in the first sentence, then a valuable privacy behavior, then the endpoint. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 simple read-only GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return semantics (invoicing outcome and failure code) and the key error behavior (404 for cross-NIF events). It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though a bit more detail on the success response shape would have made it fully comprehensive.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add material parameter-level semantics beyond restating the endpoint path and introducing the domain phrase 'NIF's connection,' which is already clarified by the schema's company_id description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a specific resource ('a single payment event of the NIF's connection'), and clarifies what the response includes: the automatic invoicing outcome and a stable failure code when invoicing failed. This clearly distinguishes it from list, retry, and other payment-related siblings such as beel_list_payment_events and beel_retry_payment_event.

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?

The tool's context is clear: it fetches one event by ID, and the schema notes the event_id is 'as returned by the list operation,' which implies when this tool should be used relative to listing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the single-event scope provides clear context without exclusions.

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