Moxie CRM MCP Server

apply_payment

Posts a payment to an existing invoice by specifying invoice ID, amount, date, method, and notes. Updates the invoice balance accordingly.

Instructions

Apply a payment to an existing invoice

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": {
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "apply_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Notes about the payment
`amount`	Yes	Payment amount
`invoiceId`	Yes	ID of the invoice to apply payment to
`paymentDate`	No	Date of payment (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`paymentMethod`	No	Payment method (e.g., 'check', 'cash', 'bank transfer')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects (e.g., updating invoice balance), partial payment handling, or required invoice state. This is significant for a financial mutation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and target, earning a top score for conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a financial operation with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not address payment constraints, effects on invoice status, or return behavior. More context is needed for an agent to use it safely.

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 100%, with each parameter having a concise description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 'Apply a payment to an existing invoice' uses a specific verb and resource, making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_invoice and search_payable_invoices by focusing on payments to existing invoices.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for existing invoices, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide contextual prerequisites. It offers no exclusions or sibling references.

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