Legacy Billing MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Legacy Billing MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceLets an AI agent list reports, start and poll exports, and look up insurance claims from a legacy system that has no API, with each server process serving only the tools and report types its role permits. Every tool call is written to an append-only, field-masked audit log, and the backend's login credentials stay in an encrypted vault the model never sees.3MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP clients such as Claude and Cursor to manage customers, create and update draft invoices, list or download invoices as PDF and XML e-invoices, and record and list payments in a BillingEngine account. It runs locally with your API key and never deletes data.10338 npmMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query invoice data through tools that list and filter invoices, fetch a single invoice by ID, compute counts and USD totals, and surface overdue rows with totals. Keeps tabular finance data out of the prompt by exposing small, Zod-validated queries over a sample invoice CSV.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceExposes a ledger system (invoice queue, duplicate control, VAT register, contractor history, decision journal) as MCP tools for AI agents, enabling accurate invoice processing with deterministic validation.7MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to serve as the only interface for consultant and small-agency billing, recording clients, billable work, expenses and payments, and drafting and issuing invoices. It enforces billing rules server-side, numbering invoices, calculating totals, requiring exact-total approval before issue, and never rewriting an issued invoice.4 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceTen typed tools that let Claude Desktop, Claude Code or any MCP client work with a company operations dataset: customers, orders, invoices, payments and stock. Every call is validated against a schema and recorded in a log. Python, official mcp SDK with FastMCP, MIT licence.1010 PyPIMIT
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
The two customer tools (list vs get-by-id) are clearly separated, and calculate_invoice vs compare_implementations have distinct purposes spelled out in their descriptions. There is minor conceptual overlap since compare_implementations implicitly runs both calculators, so an agent might pick calculate_invoice when it really wanted verification, but the descriptions mitigate this.
All four tools follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_customers, get_customer, calculate_invoice, compare_implementations). The verbs are conventional and predictable for their actions.
Four tools is thin for a server labeled 'Billing'; the surface is essentially read-customers plus invoice math plus a migration check. The count is defensible for a narrow strangler-facade migration service, but feels borderline minimal for the stated domain.
Customers are read-only (no create/update) and there is no invoice persistence or retrieval — only calculation — plus no order or payment operations. The calculation and migration-verification path is well covered, but the broader billing lifecycle has notable gaps.