BeeL MCP server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

beel_update_verifactu_configuration

Idempotent

Update a company's VeriFactu settings by replacing enabled and apply_by_default flags. Control AEAT invoice submission and automatic application to new invoices.

Instructions

Replaces the VeriFactu configuration of a company.

Writable fields: only enabled and apply_by_default, and both are required — this is a full replacement, not a partial merge. The rest of the returned configuration is resolved server-side.
Coherence: apply_by_default cannot be true while enabled is false, which answers 422 APPLY_BY_DEFAULT_REQUIRES_ENABLED.

Turning it off

Setting enabled to false stops sending this company's invoices to AEAT and starts the deregistration of the NIF with the VeriFactu provider. It does not deactivate the company: the activation is a fact of its own for the (company, environment) pair, so the company keeps issuing in that environment and stays ready. Releasing the NIF — and in Live freeing it for another account — is always DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/activations.

Endpoint: PUT /v1/companies/{company_id}/verifactu-configuration

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

Why an issued invoice may never reach AEAT, and how to tell before issuing. (resource: beel://guardrails/verifactu-gates)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`company_id`	Yes	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0Aug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / $defs / UpdateVeriFactuConfigurationRequest / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
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."

First observedv0.3.1Aug 25, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals critical behaviors: full replacement semantics, required fields with no defaults, the server-side resolution of remaining configuration, and the downstream effect of disabling VeriFactu (stopping AEAT submissions and starting NIF deregistration). It also answers a likely error by naming the 422 APPLY_BY_DEFAULT_REQUIRES_ENABLED condition. This is substantial context the structured annotations do not provide.

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 structured with bolded lead-ins, bullets, and a clear top-loaded summary. Each section earns its place: writable fields, coherence rule, disable semantics, endpoint, and guardrail pointer. The length is justified by the high density of decision-relevant information.

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?

The description covers what the operation does, how it behaves when disabling, what it does not do, the relevant endpoint, and a pointer to fiscal guardrails for edge cases. Given the schema descriptions for company_id and the body, plus the detailed behavioral notes, an agent has enough to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates strongly. It explains that both enabled and apply_by_default are required, that omission is a client error rather than a silent default, and that apply_by_default cannot be true while enabled is false. It also confirms the body carries only the two writable fields, adding operational meaning beyond the schema.

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: "Replaces the VeriFactu configuration of a company." It further disambiguates by clarifying this is a full replacement, not a partial merge, and names the only writable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only or tax-related siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when this tool is appropriate and, importantly, when it is not: setting enabled to false does not deactivate the company, and releasing the NIF is always done via DELETE /v1/companies/{company_id}/activations. It also points to beel_docs_search for exhaustive rules and to fiscal guardrails before calling, giving the agent actionable routing context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server