Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_get_recurring_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details of a company's recurring invoice template, including its schedule, template lines, and next generation date, to manage recurring billing.

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}

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • Fiscal rules, domains simplified, taxes: beel_rules_list with domain, or resource beel://guardrails/.

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_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the recurring invoice template, as returned when it is created or listed. A template of another company answers `404` with `RECURRING_NOT_FOUND`, 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 / recurring_invoice_id / description
      Added value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the recurring invoice template, as returned when it is created or listed. A template of another company answers `404` with `RECURRING_NOT_FOUND`, exactly like one that does not exist."
  2. 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."
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful content about what is returned (schedule, template lines, next generation date) and the guardrail pointer, but does not disclose error behavior or output shape beyond the schema's own 404/403 notes.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and information-dense with no filler. The endpoint line and guardrail warning are somewhat boilerplate but genuinely useful routing context, so they earn their place.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, scope, and returned fields, and annotations cover safety. The main omission is differentiation from the recurring-invoice sibling family, which would help selection.

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 both parameters carry detailed descriptions (UUID semantics, 403/404 behavior, ambiguous-identifier clarification). The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 for fully documented params 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 (Retrieves) and resource (recurring invoice template) with scope ('of this company') and enumerates returned content (schedule, template lines, next generation date). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like beel_get_recurring_invoice_history, beel_get_recurring_next_occurrence, or beel_get_recurring_invoice_stats, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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 only implied: fetch a single template by its IDs. The 'Read before calling' block points to beel_rules_list for fiscal rules, which is prerequisite context rather than when-to-use guidance, and no alternative (list vs. history vs. get) is named. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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