Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_retry_payment_event

Idempotent

Reprocess a failed payment event after you fix the cause, such as a missing invoice series. It applies current NIF settings and accepts only retryable events under the retry limit.

Instructions

Reprocesses a payment event whose automatic invoicing did not complete, applying the configuration of the NIF as it stands now. Use it after fixing what caused the failure, for example a missing invoice series.

  • retry_available: only events where it is true can be retried. Read it instead of deriving retryability from status yourself; anything else returns 400.

  • Limit: the status and the skip reason must admit reprocessing, and the event must still be under the limit of 3 retries (retry_count).

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections/{provider}/events/{event_id}/retry

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYesIdentifier of the payment event, as returned by the list operation.
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.
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. 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint and readOnlyHint flags, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the 3-retry limit, the 400 on non-retryable events, and the subtle idempotency semantics where an omitted key makes blind retries safe but collapses identical operations for 24 hours. This is substantial behavioral context not available from annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by two compact, high-value bullets on retryability and limits. The endpoint line is slightly redundant with the resource path but harmless; there is 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?

For a mutation with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke correctly: preconditions, error behavior, retry limit, and idempotency semantics. It omits the success response shape, but the agent can safely infer success from absence of the documented 400, and annotations already cover the side-effect profile.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a rich description, including provider lowercase constraints, company_id auth semantics, and idempotency_key behavior. The description mentions retry_available and retry_count, but these are domain/response fields rather than parameters, so it adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Reprocesses') and resource ('payment event whose automatic invoicing did not complete'), and adds the meaningful nuance that the current NIF configuration is applied. The payment-event scope clearly distinguishes it from the many siblings like beel_retry_webhook_delivery or beel_generate_payment_event_draft.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It tells the agent exactly when to use it: after fixing the failure cause. It also gives firm preconditions and exclusions — retry_available must be true, status and skip reason must admit reprocessing, retry_count must be under 3 — and warns against deriving retryability from status, with a 400 otherwise.

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