Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cuéntica MCP

Cuéntica MCP

by dacmail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_invoice_charges

Destructive

Update charges on an invoice: mark as paid, create new charges, modify existing ones, or delete omitted charges.

Instructions

⚠️ Actualiza cobros de una factura (ej: marcarla como cobrada). Confirmar con usuario. charges: [{id?, paid, amount, date, payment_method, destination_account}] Con id=actualiza, sin id=crea, omitidos=eliminados.

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>",
      "charges": "<charges>"
    },
    "name": "update_invoice_charges"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYes
chargesYes

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?

Beyond the destructiveHint: true annotation, the description explains the CRUD behavior: charges with id are updated, without id are created, omitted are deleted. This provides clear behavioral transparency about side effects and data manipulation.

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?

The description is very concise: two sentences and a list. The warning emoji and 'Confirmar con usuario' front-load important context. 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 the output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers input parameters well with structure and behavior. Minor gaps: doesn't specify date format or payment_method enumeration, but overall complete for a CRUD tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by detailing the structure of charges (id?, paid, amount, date, payment_method, destination_account) and the CRUD logic for each. This adds crucial meaning absent from the schema.

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 the tool updates invoice charges (e.g., marking as paid) in Spanish, which is the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mark_invoice_paid or update_income_charges by specifying 'cobros de una factura' (invoice charges).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_invoice_paid or update_income_charges. The only usage hint is 'Confirmar con usuario' (confirm with user), which is a safety note rather than a selection criterion.

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