Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

freshbooks-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

freshbooks_record_payment

Record a payment against an invoice after explicit user confirmation. Provide invoice ID, amount, date, and payment type to complete the entry.

Instructions

Record a payment against an invoice. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken and makes no network call, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateNoPayment date, YYYY-MM-DD
noteNo
typeNoPayment type, e.g. "Check", "Credit"
amountYesPayment amount
invoiceidYesInvoice the payment applies to
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: that the first call in fallback mode makes no network call, returns a preview and confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds. It also references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, which adds context. However, it does not mention post-confirmation outcomes (e.g., success/failure responses) or side effects beyond recording the payment.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence is long and dense but necessary to convey the confirmation flow. It avoids redundancy with the schema, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the tool returns after a successful confirmation (e.g., a payment object or a success message). It also omits error conditions (e.g., invalid invoiceid). Given the confirmation complexity, an agent would benefit from knowing the final response shape. The description covers the confirmation mechanics but not the tool's overall output, leaving some incompleteness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the confirmToken parameter in detail—clarifying that it is only for the two-step fallback, must be passed after user approval, and is ignored when elicitation is supported. This goes beyond the schema's basic description and helps an agent use it correctly.

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?

States a specific verb ('record') and resource ('a payment against an invoice'), which is unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freshbooks_list_payments and freshbooks_get_payment by focusing on the recording action, making its purpose clear without needing to reference alternatives.

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 explains when and how to use the tool, particularly the confirmation flow: it notes that the first call may return a preview and confirmToken (when the client lacks elicitation) and that a second call is required to proceed. This is clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools (e.g., for recording a payment vs. updating an invoice).

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