Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_list_recurring_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve recurring invoice templates for a company using filters, sorting, and pagination. Find scheduled invoices by status or customer to manage billing cycles.

Instructions

Lists the recurring invoice templates of this company, with filters and pagination. Only the templates of the company in the path are returned.

Endpoint: GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices

⚠️ 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
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`.
statusNo
sort_byNoField to sort by. Defaults to `created_at` when omitted.
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.
sort_orderNoSort direction. Defaults to `desc` when omitted.
customer_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / RecurringInvoiceStatus / example
      Removed value: -"ACTIVE"
    • 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the company-scoping rule, the endpoint method, and a prominent fiscal guardrails warning about AEAT invoice type and regime_key, including pointers to beel://guardrails resources and beel_docs_search. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by the endpoint and a structured guardrail block. The guardrail bullets earn their place given their importance, and the description is well-organized without significant redundancy.

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 provides the endpoint, scoping rule, filters/pagination hint, and crucial fiscal guardrail pointers. There is no output schema and the description does not describe the response shape, but for a straightforward list endpoint this is largely inferable. It also lacks explicit guidance to use beel_get_recurring_invoice for a single template, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema covers most parameters with strong descriptions (company_id, page, limit, sort_by, sort_order, status via enum), so the burden on the description is moderate. The description only generically mentions 'filters and pagination' and adds no parameter-specific meaning. customer_id remains undocumented in both schema and description, but at 71% coverage this is not a severe gap.

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 'Lists the recurring invoice templates of this company', giving a specific verb and resource, and explicitly scopes to templates rather than invoices. It also notes 'Only the templates of the company in the path are returned', which differentiates it from related list/get tools for regular invoices and single recurring invoices.

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 clear context: the tool lists recurring invoice templates of the path company, with filters and pagination, and includes the endpoint. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool (e.g., when a single recurring invoice is needed), so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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