Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

by bu5hm4nn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_invoice_attachment

Attach supporting documents to invoices by uploading PDFs, images, or spreadsheets.

Instructions

Upload a file attachment to an invoice. Supported file types: PDF, PNG, JPG, JPEG, GIF, DOC, DOCX, XLS, XLSX. Use this to attach supporting documents to invoices.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "add_invoice_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idNoZoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
invoice_idYesInvoice ID to attach file to
file_pathYesFull local file path to the attachment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds file type restrictions and a usage hint, but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or behavior beyond upload.

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?

Two efficient sentences: purpose first, then file types, then usage hint. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple upload tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, file type constraints, and usage context. It could mention what happens on success (e.g., attachment ID) but is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%; each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides.

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 it uploads a file attachment to an invoice, with supported file types. It distinguishes from siblings like add_bill_attachment and add_expense_receipt by specifying 'invoice'.

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?

The description says 'Use this to attach supporting documents to invoices', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling list implies other tools for different resources.

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