BeeL MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

beel_patch_product

Partially update a product by sending only the fields to change; omitted fields stay unchanged, while null clears nullable values.

Instructions

Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the product as it is — in particular main_tax, irpf_rate and equivalence_surcharge_rate.

Null vs omitted: a field sent as null is cleared, which is different from omitting it (see PatchProductRequest).
Only update verb: the total replacement PUT /v1/products/{product_id}, which reset the omitted fields to their creation defaults, is not carried over to the canonical form.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id}/products/{product_id}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`company_id`	Yes	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.
`product_id`	Yes	Product unique UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.9.0Oct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / irpf_rate / description

Previous value: -"IRPF withholding percentage. Send `null` to state that none\napplies (equivalent to `0`).\n"New value: +"IRPF withholding percentage. Send `null` to state that none\napplies (equivalent to `0`).\n\nThe rate must be one of `IrpfPercentage` (`INVALID_IRPF` otherwise) and one\nthe company can bear, the same check as an invoice line (see\n`WithholdingOptions` in the tax configuration): an entity gets the rates of\nindividuals rejected with `IRPF_RATE_NOT_FOR_CORPORATE_ISSUER`, and an individual gets\n`9.5` rejected with `IRPF_RATE_ONLY_FOR_CORPORATE_ISSUER`.\n"

changedInput schema / $defs / RegimeKey / description

Previous value: -"Regime key according to VeriFactu regulations. Omitted, `01` (general regime) applies:\n- 01: General regime operation\n- 02: Export\n- 03: Used goods, art, antiques\n- 04: Investment gold\n- 05: Travel agencies\n- 06: Group of entities\n- 07: Cash basis\n- 08: IPSI/IVA/IGIC operations\n- 09: Mediating agencies\n- 10: Third-party collections\n- 11: Local rental\n- 14: VAT pending in certifications\n- 15: VAT pending successive tract\n- 17: OSS and IOSS\n- 18: Equivalence surcharge\n- 19: REAGYP\n- 20: Simplified regime\n\n**One exception to \"a key you send is the key you get\":** when the line ends up\ncarrying an equivalence surcharge — whether you sent `equivalence_surcharge_rate`\nor it was inherited from the company's tax configuration — a `01` is rewritten to\n`18`, because a surcharge under the general regime is fiscally incoherent. Send\n`equivalence_surcharge_rate: 0` explicitly to keep `01`. See\n`equivalence_surcharge_rate` in the invoice line for the full rules.\n"New value: +"Regime key according to VeriFactu regulations. Omitted, `01` (general regime) applies:\n- 01: General regime operation\n- 02: Export (IVA and IGIC; not IPSI, whose AEAT list is `01, 08, 11, 18, 19, 20`)\n- 03: Used goods, art, antiques (not accepted, see below)\n- 04: Investment gold\n- 05: Travel agencies\n- 06: Group of entities (not accepted, see below)\n- 07: Cash basis\n- 08: Operation subject to another indirect tax — IPSI or IGIC on an IVA line, IPSI or IVA\n  on an IGIC line. It is **not** the general regime of IGIC, which is `01`.\n- 09: Mediating agencies\n- 10: Third-party collections\n- 11: Local rental\n- 14: VAT pending in certifications (not accepted, see below)\n- 15: VAT pending successive tract\n- 17: OSS and IOSS\n- 18: Equivalence surcharge\n- 19: REAGYP\n- 20: Simplified regime\n\n**What AEAT requires with each key** (Validaciones VERI*FACTU 3.1.3.15.6), checked on\nIVA and IGIC lines before the invoice is numbered. Otherwise the request is rejected with\n`422` and the code in brackets:\n- `04`: only reverse charge (an `ISP_ART_84_2_*` reason) or an exemption\n  (`REGIME_KEY_CLASSIFICATION_NOT_ACCEPTED`).\n- `08`: only `exemption_reason: NO_SUJETA_LOCALIZACION`, at 0 %\n  (`REGIME_KEY_CLASSIFICATION_NOT_ACCEPTED`).\n- `10`: only `exemption_reason: NO_SUJETA_ART_7_9`, on a `STANDARD` invoice whose\n  recipient has a `nif` (`REGIME_KEY_CLASSIFICATION_NOT_ACCEPTED`,\n  `REGIME_KEY_REQUIRES_STANDARD_INVOICE`, `REGIME_KEY_REQUIRES_RECIPIENT_NIF`).\n- `11` (IVA): a subject line only at 21 %, and no reverse charge\n  (`REGIME_KEY_REQUIRES_VAT_RATE`, `REGIME_KEY_CLASSIFICATION_NOT_ACCEPTED`).\n- `06` and `14` are not accepted (`REGIME_KEY_NOT_SUPPORTED`): AEAT requires with them\n  data the invoice does not carry (a cost-based taxable base; an operation date after the\n  issue date and a public-administration recipient).\n- `03` (used goods) is not accepted (`REGIME_KEY_NOT_SUPPORTED`): under it the invoice\n  must not show the tax separately (RD 1619/2012, art. 16.2.c), and it always does. The\n  corrective of an invoice that already carried `03` keeps it.\n- `05` (travel agencies) and `07` (cash basis) are accepted, and the invoice PDF carries\n  the mention of their regime (RD 1619/2012, art. 6.1 n and p). `07`: no reverse charge,\n  no non-subject reason and, of the exemptions, only art. 20 or `OTRO`\n  (`REGIME_KEY_CLASSIFICATION_NOT_ACCEPTED`).\n`GET /v1/tax-types` only offers the keys that are accepted.\n\n**One exception to \"a key you send is the key you get\":** when the line ends up\ncarrying an equivalence surcharge — whether you sent `equivalence_surcharge_rate`\nor it was inherited from the company's tax configuration — a `01` is rewritten to\n`18`, because a surcharge under the general regime is fiscally incoherent. Send\n`equivalence_surcharge_rate: 0` explicitly to keep `01`. See\n`equivalence_surcharge_rate` in the invoice line for the full rules.\n"

changedInput schema / $defs / TaxInfo / description

Previous value: -"Complete tax information with cross-validations:\n- IVA: real rates 4, 5, 10, 21 (see below for 0)\n- IGIC: 0, 3, 5, 7, 9.5, 15, 20 — here 0 is the real \"Tipo Cero\"\n- IPSI: real rates 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 (see below for 0)\n- OTHER: any percentage between 0 and 100\n\n**0 % under IVA and IPSI is not a rate, it is the exemption sentinel.** It is accepted\non a line, but only together with an `exemption_reason` (exempt or non-subject\noperation); on its own it says nothing and the line is rejected. That is why\n`GET /v1/tax-types` publishes 4, 5, 10 and 21 for IVA and not 0: the legitimate way\nto a 0 % IVA line is through an exemption reason, which the same response also\npublishes. IGIC is different — its 0 % is a real legal rate (basic necessities) and\nneeds no reason.\n\n**IVA 5 %** (RD-ley 11/2022 and its extensions, on electricity, gas and basic\nfoodstuffs) is no longer in force for new operations, but it stays valid: corrective\ninvoices and late-filed invoices for the periods when it applied must be able to carry\nit. Its equivalence surcharge pair is 0.625.\n\nException: when regime_key = \"17\" (OSS/IOSS) the invoice applies the destination\ncountry VAT instead of the Spanish one, so any percentage in the EU range [0, 27]\nis accepted regardless of the tax type set — including 0 without an exemption reason.\n"New value: +"Complete tax information with cross-validations:\n- IVA: real rates 4, 10, 21, and the temporary 2, 5 and 7.5 (see below for 0)\n- IGIC: 0, 3, 5, 7, 9.5, 15, 20 — here 0 is the real \"Tipo Cero\"\n- IPSI: real rates 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 (see below for 0)\n- OTHER: any percentage between 0 and 100\n\n**0 % under IVA and IPSI is not a rate, it is the exemption sentinel.** It is accepted\non a line, but only together with an `exemption_reason` (exempt or non-subject\noperation); on its own it says nothing and the line is rejected. That is why\n`GET /v1/tax-types` publishes the IVA rates without 0: the legitimate way\nto a 0 % IVA line is through an exemption reason, which the same response also\npublishes. IGIC is different — its 0 % is a real legal rate (basic necessities) and\nneeds no reason.\n\n**IVA 5 %** (the temporary rate applied from 2022 to electricity, gas and certain\nfoodstuffs) is no longer in force for new operations. AEAT only accepts it on operations\ndated from 2022-07-01 to 2024-09-30: send the `operation_date` of that period, because\nwithout one the issue date decides and a line at 5 % is rejected with\n`422 VAT_RATE_NOT_ACCEPTED_ON_DATE`. Its equivalence surcharge pair is 0.5 up to 2022-12-31\nand 0.62 from 2023-01-01. **IVA 2 % and 7.5 %** (temporary rates of the last quarter of 2024)\nare accepted only on operations dated from 2024-10-01 to 2024-12-31, with surcharges 0.26\nand 1.\n\nException: when regime_key = \"17\" (OSS/IOSS) the invoice applies the destination\ncountry VAT instead of the Spanish one, so any percentage in the EU range [0, 27]\nis accepted regardless of the tax type set — including 0 without an exemption reason.\n"

changedInput schema / $defs / TaxType / description

Previous value: -"Tax type by territory:\n- IVA: Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (4%, 5%, 10%, 21%)\n- IGIC: Canary Islands (0%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9.5%, 15%, 20%)\n- IPSI: Ceuta and Melilla (0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 10%)\n- OTHER: Configurable 0%-100%\n\nUnder IVA and IPSI, 0% is not one of these rates: it is the exemption/non-subject\nsentinel and always travels with an `exemption_reason`. IGIC's 0% is a real rate.\nSee `TaxInfo` for the full rules.\n"New value: +"Tax type by territory:\n- IVA: Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands (4%, 10%, 21%; 2%, 5% and 7.5% only on operations of their period)\n- IGIC: Canary Islands (0%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9.5%, 15%, 20%)\n- IPSI: Ceuta and Melilla (0.5%, 1%, 2%, 4%, 8%, 10%)\n- OTHER: Configurable 0%-100%\n\nUnder IVA and IPSI, 0% is not one of these rates: it is the exemption/non-subject\nsentinel and always travels with an `exemption_reason`. IGIC's 0% is a real rate.\nSee `TaxInfo` for the full rules.\n"

Changed17 schema fields changedv0.5.0Aug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / active / example
```
Removed value: -true
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / code / example
```
Removed value: -"SERV-001"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / default_price / example
```
Removed value: -85.5
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / description / example
```
Removed value: -"Specialized technical consulting services"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / equivalence_surcharge_rate / example
```
Removed value: -5.2
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / irpf_rate / example
```
Removed value: -15
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / name / example
```
Removed value: -"Technical consulting"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / PatchProductRequest / properties / unit / example
```
Removed value: -"hours"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / ProductCategory / example
```
Removed value: -"CONSULTING"
```
removedInput schema / $defs / RegimeKey / example
```
Removed value: -"01"
```
addedInput schema / $defs / TaxInfo / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

removedInput schema / $defs / TaxInfo / example

Removed value: -{
-  "percentage": 21,
-  "regime_key": "01",
-  "type": "IVA"
-}

removedInput schema / $defs / TaxInfo / properties / percentage / example
```
Removed value: -21
```
removedInput schema / $defs / TaxType / example
```
Removed value: -"IVA"
```
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."

First observedv0.3.1Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With annotations already declaring non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, the description still adds real value: the null-clears vs omitted-keeps rule, the fact that `main_tax` is replaced wholesale rather than field-by-field, and the preservation of `irpf_rate`/`equivalence_surcharge_rate`. It does not discuss the idempotency annotation or the 403/validation failure modes covered only in the schema, so it is strong but not fully self-contained.

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?

Three tight bullet points plus the endpoint line, with the core semantics (only present fields touched) front-loaded and no filler. The middle bullet on the PUT replacement is slightly awkwardly worded ('not carried over to the canonical form') and forces a re-read, which keeps it from a full 5.

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?

For a 3-parameter patch tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, the partial-merge semantics, the null/omit distinction, and which tax fields are untouched. Combined with annotations that carry the safety profile and a schema that carries validation detail, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 67% and the nested `$defs` (PatchProductRequest, TaxInfo, RegimeKey) are extremely detailed, so the schema does most of the heavy lifting. The description adds framing on null vs omitted and which fields survive a patch, but largely restates the PatchProductRequest description rather than adding new per-parameter meaning, matching a baseline-plus-1 profile.

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 precise verb (updates), resource (product), and scope (only fields present in the body; all others left as-is), and names the fields that are preserved. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the total-replacement `PUT /v1/products/{product_id}`, so an agent can separate this partial-update tool from its sibling mutations without opening any schema.

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?

Tells the caller when to reach for this tool (partial update) and contrasts it with the PUT alternative that would reset omitted fields to creation defaults, which is exactly the routing decision an agent must make. It stops short of stating preconditions such as required permissions or when a patch should be avoided in favor of create/delete, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

beel_patch_product

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools