Skip to main content
Glama
enzoemir1

invoiceflow-mcp

Manage Client

client_manage
Idempotent

Create or update client records for invoices. Deduplicates by email; returns existing record if email already exists. Accepts name, email, company, address, currency.

Instructions

Create or upsert a client record used by invoice_create. Accepts name, email, company, address, city, country, tax_id, phone, default_currency ("USD"|"EUR"|"GBP"|...) and notes. Returns the stored client object including the generated id (UUID), an empty payment_history (populated as invoices are paid), and timestamps. Safe to call repeatedly: if a client with the same email already exists, the existing record is returned unchanged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoOptional city.
nameYesDisplay name shown on invoices and reports. Required.
emailYesPrimary billing email. Used as the dedup key — calling client_manage twice with the same email returns the existing record. Also used by payment_reconcile to match incoming payments.
notesNoInternal notes about this client (not printed on invoices).
phoneNoOptional phone number.
tax_idNoOptional VAT / tax ID (e.g. EU VAT number, US EIN). Printed on PDFs that need it.
addressNoOptional billing street address.
companyNoOptional legal company name (printed on the invoice when set).
countryNoOptional country (full name or ISO code — printed verbatim).
default_currencyNoDefault invoice currency for this client. Used when invoice_create omits currency.
Behavior5/5

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: safe to call repeatedly, idempotent, returns existing record on duplicate email, and describes the return structure (id, payment_history, timestamps). Annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent and reinforced.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds necessary context. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 10 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the return object, idempotency via email, and links to invoice_create. Could mention update behavior, but it's implicit in 'returned unchanged'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the dedup role of email and listing enum options for default_currency, but does not significantly enhance meaning for other parameters beyond 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 creates or upserts a client record used by invoice_create, specifying accepted fields and return object. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all invoice-related, so no confusion.

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 provides context by stating it's used by invoice_create and explains idempotent behavior via email dedup. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/enzoemir1/invoiceflow-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server