Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chrischall

honeybook-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

pay_invoice

Read-only

Pay a vendor invoice by returning a HoneyBook portal deep link for browser payment, after user confirmation. This call moves no money.

Instructions

Pay an invoice from a vendor. In v1 this returns a deep link to the HoneyBook portal instead of paying headlessly — it moves no money itself; the user pays in their browser. It still asks the user to confirm before handing over the link: 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

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich behavior beyond the annotations: it explicitly states no money moves, returns a portal deep link, and details the confirmation flow including the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true (no server-side mutation) and openWorldHint=true (external portal), so there is no contradiction and substantial added context.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the critical v1 caveat in the first sentence. The remainder is dense and readable, though the em-dash clauses and parenthetical about MCP_CONFIRM_MODE make it slightly sprawling for a single paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of describing the return (deep link, or preview + confirmToken) and the confirmation handshake. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the shape/format of the returned link or the preview payload.

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 schema already documents file_id, origin, and confirmToken in detail, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the confirmToken lifecycle but adds little parameter detail the schema does not already carry.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Pay an invoice from a vendor') and immediately disambiguates the behavior an agent would otherwise assume by naming a sibling-adjacent concept (list_payments vs this action). The v1 caveat makes clear this is the payment action, distinct from the read-only listing tools.

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?

Explains the operational context (v1 returns a deep link; user pays in browser) and the confirmation modes, referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, so routing against siblings like list_payments is left to inference.

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