Skip to main content
Glama
berthelius

Frihet MCP Server

Update Invoice

update_invoice
Idempotent

Update existing invoices by changing only the specified fields, such as marking an invoice as paid.

Instructions

Update an existing invoice using PATCH semantics. Only the provided fields will be changed. Example: id='abc123', status='paid' to mark an invoice as paid. / Actualiza una factura existente. Solo se modifican los campos proporcionados.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesInvoice ID / ID de la factura
itemsNoLine items / Conceptos
notesNoNotes / Notas
statusNoInvoice status / Estado
dueDateNoDue date (YYYY-MM-DD) / Fecha de vencimiento
taxRateNoTax rate % / IVA %
clientIdNoExisting client ID — server back-fills taxId/address / ID de cliente existente
irpfRateNoIRPF withholding % (retencion autonomo ES, e.g. 15 or 7) / Retencion IRPF %
poNumberNoClient purchase-order reference / Numero de pedido del cliente
seriesIdNoInvoice numbering series ID / ID de serie de numeracion
issueDateNoIssue date (YYYY-MM-DD) / Fecha de emision
clientNameNoClient name / Nombre del cliente
prepaymentNoPrepaid/advance amount already collected in EUR / Anticipo cobrado en EUR
clientTaxIdNoClient tax ID (NIF/CIF/VAT) shown on the invoice / NIF/CIF del cliente
discountRateNoGlobal discount % applied to the invoice / Descuento global %
clientAddressNoClient billing address shown on the invoice / Direccion fiscal del cliente
operationTypeNoOperation type (service or goods) / Tipo de operacion
clientLocationNoFiscal zone driving IVA vs IGIC vs exempt / Zona fiscal (IVA/IGIC/exento)
documentNumberNoExternally-issued number for import (honored verbatim) / Numero externo para importacion
equivalenceSurchargeRateNoRecargo de equivalencia % (ES retail regime) / Recargo de equivalencia %

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
itemsYes
notesNo
totalNo
statusNo
dueDateNo
taxRateNo
createdAtNo
issueDateNo
updatedAtNo
clientNameYes
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it uses PATCH semantics and only changes provided fields, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations offer.

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 two concise sentences (English and Spanish), with a practical example. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 high parameter count (20) and full schema coverage, the description adequately summarizes the tool's behavior. An output schema exists (not shown) which likely covers return values, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. The example referencing id and status is helpful but not significant enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 'Update', the resource 'existing invoice', and specifies PATCH semantics. It distinguishes from siblings like create_invoice, delete_invoice, and mark_invoice_paid by noting that only provided fields are changed.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a usage example but does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_invoice_paid or duplicate_invoice. The guidance is implicit but lacks explicit differentiation.

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/berthelius/frihet-mcp'

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