Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_set_recurring_invoice_status

Idempotent

Pause or resume automated recurring invoice generation by updating the template's lifecycle status, preserving the schedule when paused and recalculating the next issue date when resumed.

Instructions

Sets the lifecycle status of a recurring invoice template. This is how generation is paused and resumed.

  • PAUSED: stops automatic generation, keeping the schedule configuration intact.

  • ACTIVE: resumes generation and recalculates the next generation date from today.

  • COMPLETED: reached on its own when the schedule runs out. It cannot be set here; the body only accepts ACTIVE and PAUSED.

  • Rejected transitions: resuming a template that is already active, or one whose pause.blocker is still in effect.

Endpoint: PUT /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices/{recurring_invoice_id}/status

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • How BeeL derives the AEAT invoice type, and the rules each type imposes. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-types)

  • What regime_key means, where it lives, and which combinations are rejected. (resource: beel://guardrails/regime-keys)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

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.
recurring_invoice_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs / SetRecurringInvoiceStatusRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / SetRecurringInvoiceStatusRequest / properties / status / example
      Removed value: -"PAUSED"
    • 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 indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains what PAUSED and ACTIVE do (stop/resume generation, recalculate next date), that COMPLETED is only reached automatically, and that invalid transitions are rejected. It also highlights fiscal guardrails that must be consulted, which is valuable context. The description does not contradict annotations, and it meaningfully supplements them.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, bullet points for each status, a rejected-transitions note, an endpoint line, and a fiscal guardrails callout. It is longer than average but every section earns its place; the guardrails pointer is essential for correct usage. It is front-loaded with purpose and uses formatting to improve scanability. Slight redundancy with the schema status description is the only waste.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with status transitions, guardrails, and strict validation. The description covers the core semantics, rejected cases, and points to two guardrail resources and a docs search for exhaustive rules. It does not mention what the response looks like on success (no output schema exists), nor does it repeat the parameter-level detail that the schema provides for company_id. However, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially with the pointer to docs for edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description elaborates on the `status` parameter, but that is already covered in the schema with identical phrasing. It provides no guidance for `recurring_invoice_id` or the `body` structure beyond what the schema already includes. With schema description coverage at only 33% (only company_id has a rich description), the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics of the other two required fields. This is a notable gap because the agent must know what `recurring_invoice_id` refers to, and the body's only field (status) is already documented.

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 and resource — 'Sets the lifecycle status of a recurring invoice template' — and immediately clarifies its primary purpose: 'This is how generation is paused and resumed.' It distinguishes from likely siblings (e.g., beel_set_invoice_status, beel_skip_recurring_invoice) by focusing on the recurring template lifecycle and even explains the COMPLETED status cannot be set here. This is clear, specific, and disambiguating.

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?

The description states when to use the tool ('This is how generation is paused and resumed') and covers important exclusions (COMPLETED cannot be set, rejected transitions for already-active templates or when pause.blocker is in effect). It also points to docs for exhaustive rules. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like beel_set_invoice_status for one-off invoices, so the guidance is strong but not fully explicit about when *not* to use it.

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