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 payment event whose automatic invoicing failed, applying the current NIF configuration. Retry after fixing the cause, such as a missing invoice series.

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). A retry that fails for a transient cause outside the event (provider outage, timeout) does not count towards the limit.

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

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. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / connection_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Unique 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.",
+  "format": "uuid",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Payment provider slug in **lowercase**. Currently only `stripe` (Stripe Connect) is\noperative; `woocommerce` and `shopify` are reserved for future providers.\n",
-  "enum": [
-    "stripe"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "company_id",
-  "provider",
-  "event_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "company_id",
+  "connection_id",
+  "event_id"
+]
  2. 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."
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the retry cap (3, via retry_count), that transient external failures do not consume the limit, that retry_available must be true rather than derived from status, and that invalid input returns 400. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from the structured fields alone.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose then preconditions, using short bullets for the two constraints, and every sentence carries operational meaning. It is slightly long, and the endpoint line is redundant with the schema, but nothing is wasteful.

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 non-destructive, idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, the retry limit, transient-failure handling and the error case. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents event_id, company_id, connection_id and idempotency_key in detail. The description's added detail concerns event state fields (retry_available, status, retry_count) rather than the parameters themselves, so it adds little beyond the schema on parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Reprocesses') and resource ('a payment event whose automatic invoicing did not complete'), including the triggering condition. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like beel_resolve_payment_event, beel_restore_payment_event or beel_discard_payment_event.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('Use it after fixing what caused the failure, for example a missing invoice series') and lists the preconditions that must hold (retry_available true, status/skip reason admit reprocessing). It does not name alternative tools for the adjacent cases (resolve/restore/discard), so it stops short of full alternative 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