Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_resolve_payment_event

Idempotent

Marks a payment event as resolved outside BeeL, clearing events that need action without generating an invoice. Applies to all eligible events sharing the payment identity or source object.

Instructions

Marks a payment event as resolved outside BeeL, for example when the invoice was issued through another tool or the situation was otherwise handled by hand. The event leaves the events that need action without generating any invoice.

The operation applies to the whole payment the event belongs to. Its scope is every active event of the connection that shares the payment identity of the event named in the request: when the event carries a payment identifier (external_payment_id), every event with that same identifier, whatever its kind (the sale, its failed attempts, its refunds); otherwise, when it carries a source object (source_object_id, such as a credit note or a dispute), every event with that same source object; otherwise, the event alone. Within that scope, the events that need action (the same criterion as the needs_action filter) and are eligible are resolved together, in a single transaction; a failed event still pending automatic retry is resolved as well, so that no retry is attempted for a payment the caller has declared handled elsewhere. Events that do not need action — for instance an event still in RECEIVED state that has not stalled — remain unchanged. The response carries the event named in the request.

  • Eligible events: only events in FAILED, SKIPPED or RECEIVED can be resolved; if the event named in the request is not eligible, the request returns 400.

  • Terminal: a resolved event cannot be retried afterwards.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections/{connection_id}/events/{event_id}/resolve

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesIdentifier of the payment event, as returned by the list operation.
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.
connection_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the payment connection the operation acts on, as returned by `GET /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections`. A NIF can hold several connections of the same provider, so the provider slug alone does not name one. A connection of another NIF answers `404`, exactly like one that does not exist.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for this operation. Omit it and one is derived from the request itself, which makes a blind retry safe but also collapses a SECOND, deliberately identical operation into the first for 24 hours. Set it — to an order id, or anything unique per intended operation — whenever you mean to create something that may look identical to what you just created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the transactional scope (every active event sharing the payment identity or source object), the eligibility set (FAILED/SKIPPED/RECEIVED, 400 otherwise), that pending-retry failures are also resolved to block retries, that non-needing-action events are untouched, and that resolution is terminal. This is exactly the richness idempotentHint/destructiveHint cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and consequence, then scope, then eligibility, then terminality — a logical order. It is long and occasionally repetitive (the illustrative 'the sale, its failed attempts, its refunds'), but nearly every sentence carries operational weight.

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 mutation with a single transaction, no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, eligibility, error condition, terminality, and even the response shape. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by explaining that the event identifier is not just a key but determines the entire resolution scope via external_payment_id / source_object_id, and by framing the operation as whole-payment rather than single-event. It does not touch idempotency_key semantics (left to the schema), so it is not a 5.

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 (resolve) and resource (payment event) plus the semantic consequence: the event leaves the needs-action set without generating an invoice. This is precisely what distinguishes it from beel_retry_payment_event, beel_discard_payment_event and beel_generate_payment_event_draft, even without naming them.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use context ('the invoice was issued through another tool or the situation was otherwise handled by hand'), which is clear guidance. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternatives (discard/restore/retry) or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing.

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