Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

pay_invoice

Destructive

Initiates payment for a vendor invoice, returning a HoneyBook portal link after user confirmation.

Instructions

Pay an invoice from a vendor. In v1 this returns a deep link to the HoneyBook portal instead of paying headlessly. 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 only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
originNoPortal origin (e.g. https://<vendor>.hbportal.co). Optional when only one session is active.
file_idYesThe invoice file _id from list_workspace_files (file_type=invoice).
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 changedv1.2.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, 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 changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses key behavioral traits: v1 returns a deep link instead of paying headlessly, requires user confirmation, and directs repeat calls with a confirmToken in fallback mode. This materially changes how an agent must invoke the tool and is not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences with purpose front-loaded and the non-standard confirmation flow explained compactly. The reference to 'MCP_CONFIRM_MODE' is terse but not fat; each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the important return behavior (deep link, preview + confirmToken) and the confirmation workflow. It could be more explicit about the final response after a successful repeat call, but the essential invocation sequence is described clearly enough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value for confirmToken by specifying it must come from this tool's phase-1 response, be passed only after user approval, never on the first call, and never reused. This goes beyond the schema description and clarifies the token lifecycle.

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 and resource: 'Pay an invoice from a vendor.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_payments and list_payment_methods by focusing on the payment action. The additional note about returning a deep link clarifies what the tool accomplishes in v1.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: ask the user to confirm first, and use the two-step confirmToken flow when the client lacks a confirmation prompt. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but the confirmation guidance is actionable and sufficient for the main workflow.

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