Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_list_payment_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

List payment provider events for a company, most recent first, to audit which charges produced an invoice and which did not.

Instructions

Lists the payment events received through the payment provider connection of a NIF (company), most recent first. Use it to audit the charges that produced an invoice and to find the ones that did not.

  • Scope: events belong to the connection, not to the NIF directly. The {provider} segment picks the connection of the NIF in the path, and only the events of that connection are returned; an event of another NIF of the same account is never reachable from here.

  • No connection: if the NIF has none for the provider, the request returns 404.

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1. The response echoes it back as `pagination.current_page`.
limitNoHow many items to return per page. The response echoes it back as `pagination.items_per_page`.
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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavior: events belong to the connection rather than directly to the NIF, events from other NIFs are unreachable, no connection yields 404, and ordering is most-recent-first. This goes well beyond the annotation signals and schema.

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 main purpose and use case are front-loaded in the first sentence. The bullet list and endpoint line are compact, and every sentence adds a distinct fact: scope, isolation, 404 behavior, and HTTP endpoint. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given rich annotations, 100% schema description coverage, and the simple read-only list use case, the description is complete. It covers scoping, edge cases, ordering, and audit intent. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough for an agent to select and safely call the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: `provider` selects the connection, `company_id` is the UUID identifier not the NIF, the `BeeL-Active-Company` header is ignored, and a company in another account is undisclosed via 403. This is high-value semantic context the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the payment events received through the payment provider connection of a NIF', plus the ordering 'most recent first'. It distinguishes itself from sibling get/retry tools by describing the action of listing events at the connection level, not a single 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 description gives a clear use case: 'Use it to audit the charges that produced an invoice and to find the ones that did not.' It also warns about scope and 404 behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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