Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_send_invoice

Idempotent

Send invoices by email with PDF attachments automatically. When no recipient is specified, uses the customer's email; supports custom recipients, CC, subject, and message.

Instructions

Sends the invoice by email, attaching its PDF by default. When no recipient is given, the addresses configured on the customer are used.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/{invoice_id}/send

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
company_idYesUnique 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.
invoice_idYesInvoice ID
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. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / Email / example
      Removed value: -"user@example.com"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / Language / example
      Removed value: -"es"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / SendEmailRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / UUID / example
      Removed value: -"550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"
    • 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."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as non-read, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds behavioral detail beyond those annotations: PDF attachment is on by default and missing recipients resolve to the customer's configured addresses. It does not mention email quotas or delivery tracking, but the description still meaningfully enriches what the annotations alone communicate.

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 description is two tight sentences plus an endpoint reference, with the primary behavior front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence earns its place by conveying a distinct, useful fact: the action, the default PDF attachment, the recipient fallback, and the endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich request schema and annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling the tool: what it does, what is attached by default, how recipients are resolved, and the HTTP endpoint. It does not summarize the complex attach_source_invoices rules or the response shape, but the schema carries those details and the core invocation is unambiguous.

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 about 75%, and the schema already documents company_id, idempotency_key, and the body fields in detail. The description reinforces the attach_pdf default and the recipients fallback, but it adds little beyond what the schema's own descriptions already say, so the high-coverage baseline 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?

The opening sentence states the exact action ('Sends the invoice by email') and resource (invoice), and adds a defining default: PDF attachment. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like beel_get_invoice_pdf and beel_get_email_delivery, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the primary use case—emailing an invoice—and explains what happens when no recipient is given, but it does not explicitly tell an agent when to choose this tool over related siblings such as beel_get_invoice_pdf or beel_get_invoice_preview. The intended use is clear enough, but exclusions and alternatives are left implicit.

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