Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_restore_payment_event

Idempotent

Restores a previously discarded payment event, plus every record removed in the same discard action, returning them to the default list.

Instructions

Reverses a previous discard, bringing a payment event back into the default list.

The operation reverses the whole discard operation: the event named in the request and every event with the same payment identity (see the discard operation) that was discarded together with it, that is, with exactly the same deleted_at timestamp. Events discarded in an earlier or later operation are not affected. Idempotent — restoring an event that is not discarded is a no-op.

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

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations supply idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real substance beyond them: the exact reversal semantics (all events with the same payment identity and identical `deleted_at` are restored together), the boundary condition that earlier/later discards are untouched, and the explicit no-op idempotency behavior. This is genuinely useful operational context.

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 the core behavior and then the scoping rules; the sentences earn their place. The nested clauses ('that is, with exactly the same `deleted_at` timestamp') are slightly dense but necessary for precision.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is reversed, which records are affected, idempotency behavior, and the endpoint. Auth/error semantics are handled in the schema descriptions, so nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents company_id, connection_id, event_id, and the idempotency_key nuances. The description only alludes to 'the event named in the request' and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Reverses a previous discard, bringing a payment event back into the default list') and pins down the scope of the reversal. An agent can distinguish it from the discard sibling 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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (recovering a discarded event) and a when-not/edge case (restoring a non-discarded event is a no-op, and events from other discard operations are unaffected). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the discard counterpart is referenced, so routing is unambiguous.

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