Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_update_payment_connection

Update the auto-invoicing settings of a payment connection you own or manage, changing only the fields you send.

Instructions

Updates the auto-invoicing settings of the payment connection named by {connection_id} of a company your account owns or manages.

  • Partial by field: a field you omit keeps its current value. The series fields also accept an explicit null, which clears the series and falls back to the company default for that document type. filter_config is the exception: when sent, it replaces the whole object, not just the sub-fields you included — a partial filter_config clears every filter axis you left out.

  • Read-only fields: id, provider, status, environment, external_account_id, connected_at, last_event_at and active_filters are not part of this request and are ignored if sent. status moves through the disconnect operation, never here.

  • Series: each one must exist, be active, belong to this NIF and carry a compatible document type, or the request answers 422.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id}/payment-connections/{connection_id}

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.
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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.9.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond them: omitted fields keep values, filter_config replaces the whole object, series fields accept null to clear, read-only fields are ignored, and 422 errors are explained for invalid series. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then uses bulleted sections for partial-update rules, read-only fields, and series constraints, ending with the endpoint. Every sentence carries actionable information for a complex update operation.

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 nested request body and no output schema, the description covers the update semantics, error conditions, and endpoint well. It does not detail every nested field (e.g., event_source effects, tax-inclusive flags), but those are documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: series null clears and falls back to company default, filter_config replaces the entire object rather than merging, and explicit read-only fields are listed as ignored. It adds value beyond the schema for the most nuanced fields.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('auto-invoicing settings of the payment connection named by {connection_id}'), and it distinguishes itself from the disconnect sibling by noting that status moves through disconnect, never here. It is clear, though it does not systematically differentiate from all other payment-connection siblings (e.g., list, initiate, retry).

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 clear context on partial updates, read-only fields, and an alternative for status changes ('status moves through the disconnect operation, never here'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the operational boundaries are well implied.

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