Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_recurring_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the full details of a recurring invoice template—schedule, template lines, and next generation date—so you can review or verify recurring billing setups.

Instructions

Retrieves the full details of a recurring invoice template of this company, including its schedule, template lines and next generation date.

Endpoint: GET /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 provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive context, so the description only needs to add marginal behavior; it supplies the HTTP endpoint and the contents of the returned object. It also attaches a required pre-read guardrail, which is extra behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not discuss error cases beyond those in the schema, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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?

Purpose sentence leads, path is one line, and the guardrail warnings are compactly bulleted before the docs pointer. There is no filler repetition of the tool name or annotation fields.

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 clarifies the resource type and the key return fields, which is important because there is no output schema. It also points to the relevant guardrail resources and docs search for rules. It still leaves the sibling distinction to the agent and does not describe the 404/validation behavior for recurring_invoice_id, but for a simple read-only GET this is a minor gap.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain both parameters, but it only re-exposes them as path placeholders. recurring_invoice_id remains undocumented except for its UUID format, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the tool's name.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('recurring invoice template'), scope ('of this company'), and key returned content ('schedule, template lines and next generation date'). The description distinguishes this from list/history siblings by emphasizing full details of the template rather than a collection or past activity.

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 purpose implies usage — call when you need full template details — and the guardrail warning says to read fiscal rules before calling. It does not name any sibling alternative (e.g. beel_get_recurring_invoice_history or beel_get_recurring_next_occurrence) or state when not to use this tool.

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