Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cuéntica MCP

Cuéntica MCP

by dacmail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

mark_invoice_paid

Destructive

Automatically marks all charges on an invoice as paid. Requires only the invoice ID and payment date.

Instructions

⚠️ Marca todos los cobros de una factura como cobrados. Más rápido que update_invoice_charges. Obtiene la factura automáticamente, marca todos los cobros como paid=True y actualiza. payment_date en formato yyyy-MM-dd. Confirmar con usuario.

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>",
      "payment_date": "<payment_date>"
    },
    "name": "mark_invoice_paid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYes
payment_dateYes
payment_methodNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true; description adds context: it modifies invoice charges, sets paid=True, updates payment_date. Includes warning emoji and confirmation note. Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotation, though lacks info on idempotency or handling of already-paid charges.

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?

Two sentences plus a warning emoji; purpose is front-loaded. Efficient but the warning emoji does not add structural clarity. Overall good conciseness with 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?

Given annotations and output schema presence, description covers core effect, usage hint, and one parameter format. Does not mention impact on existing payments or partial payments, but sufficient for agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds payment_date format (yyyy-MM-dd) but does not describe invoice_id or payment_method. Partial compensation, placing score at 3.

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 marks all charges of an invoice as paid, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool update_invoice_charges by noting it's faster.

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?

Explicitly says 'Faster than update_invoice_charges', indicating when to use this tool over an alternative. Also notes 'Confirm with user' implying a batch operation needing confirmation. Good guidance but does not mention other similar tools like mark_expense_paid.

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