Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_set_invoice_schedule

Idempotent

Set or replace an invoice's schedule to move it to SCHEDULED on a chosen date, with generation_mode deciding draft review or automatic issue and send.

Instructions

Replaces the scheduling of a draft invoice, whether it had one or not, moving it to SCHEDULED. Both fields of the body are required.

  • scheduled_for: the date the invoice is processed on. Today or later; an earlier date is rejected with 422 SCHEDULED_DATE_IN_PAST.

  • generation_mode: DRAFT leaves the invoice as a draft for manual review, ISSUE_AND_SEND issues and sends it automatically. There is no default.

  • Availability: requires the scheduled_invoices feature.

Endpoint: PUT /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/{invoice_id}/schedule

⚠️ Read before calling:

  • Fiscal rules, domains lifecycle: beel_rules_list with domain, or resource beel://guardrails/.

  • The status names, the proforma lifecycle, and which tool performs each operation. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-state-machine)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs / SetInvoiceScheduleRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / SetInvoiceScheduleRequest / properties / scheduled_for / example
      Removed value: -"2025-02-15"
    • 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, consistent with a PUT full-replacement. The description adds value beyond that: the 422 SCHEDULED_DATE_IN_PAST rejection, the absence of a default generation_mode to avoid silently downgrading ISSUE_AND_SEND, and the required feature flag. It does not mention auth/permission specifics, but the added behavioral context is substantive.

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?

Verb-led opening sentence is front-loaded and the bulleted fields are scannable. The 'Read before calling' block adds length, and some content (the enum rationale) duplicates the schema, but each section remains purposeful.

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?

For a 3-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers replacement semantics, date validation failure mode, feature gating, and pointers to fiscal/lifecycle guardrails. Only the permission profile is left unstated.

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 67% and the description explains the two body parameters' semantics—processing date with the 'today or later' constraint and the DRAFT vs ISSUE_AND_SEND effect—which goes slightly beyond the enum text by surfacing the error code and the 'no default' rationale. This is rich but partly overlaps schema documentation, so 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 and resource ('Replaces the scheduling of a draft invoice') plus the resulting state transition to SCHEDULED. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like beel_get_invoice_schedule and beel_delete_invoice_schedule, which read or remove the same resource.

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?

Explains applicability ('draft invoice, whether it had one or not') and the prerequisite feature (`scheduled_invoices`), and points to beel_rules_list and the invoice-state-machine guardrail resource for lifecycle context. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus beel_delete_invoice_schedule or beel_set_invoice_status, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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