Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es

beel_void_invoice

Destructive

Cancel an issued invoice when the operation never happened, retaining the document and reporting to AEAT if VeriFactu is enabled. Also voids proformas as a status change.

Instructions

Voids an issued invoice of this company. The document is kept and its number is never reused; when VeriFactu is enabled a cancellation record is submitted to AEAT. Use it when the operation never took place; if it did take place but with errors, issue a corrective invoice instead.

Voiding an ACTIVE proforma is a direct status change with no fiscal effect: it creates no corrective invoice and nothing is submitted to AEAT. The voided proforma is kept as the record of a rejected or withdrawn offer and stays listed.

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

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • Choosing wrong here misreports to AEAT. The 30-second decision. (resource: beel://guardrails/cancel-vs-rectify)

  • When an invoice can still be changed, and what to do once it cannot. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-state-machine)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
company_idYesNIF (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.
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.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description adds critical behavioral details: the document is kept, numbers are never reused, VeriFactu cancellation submission, proforma handling with no fiscal effect, and the deprecated/ignored void_date. It also explains idempotency key behavior. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches them substantially.

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, a separate paragraph for proforma specifics, an endpoint line, and a 'Fiscal guardrails' section with bullet points. It is a bit long but every part serves a purpose, and it front-loads the core purpose. Minor deduction for slight redundancy (e.g., repeating the documented behavior of void_date).

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 fiscal and legal complexity, the description covers the essential decision criteria (regular vs. proforma, corrective vs. void), the state-keeping behavior, and idempotency. It appropriately defers exhaustive rules to beel_docs_search and guardrail resources. It does not detail error responses or output, but there is no output schema and errors are mentioned implicitly. A complete, nuanced description for a delicate operation.

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 description coverage is 75%, and the schema already documents each parameter well (reason, void_date, company_id, idempotency_key). The description adds minimal extra semantics, mostly reiterating the deprecation of void_date and the idempotency key behavior already present in the schema. It does not significantly compensate for the small coverage gap, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'voids' and the resource 'issued invoice', and distinguishes itself from corrective invoices by specifying when each applies. It also handles the proforma case, making its purpose unambiguous and separate from sibling tools like beel_create_corrective_invoice or beel_delete_invoice.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the operation never took place') and when not to ('if it did take place but with errors, issue a corrective invoice instead'). It also explains the proforma scenario and directs the agent to guardrail resources for further decision-making, leaving no room for confusion.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/beel-es/beel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server