Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fiken-mcp

fiken-mcp

by gronnmann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

fiken_create_full_credit_note

Generate a full credit note to reverse an invoice by providing its ID and issue date.

Instructions

Creates a credit note covering the full amount of an 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": {
      "issueDate": "<issueDate>",
      "invoiceId": "<invoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_create_full_credit_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoiceIdYesID of the invoice to credit
issueDateYesIssue date YYYY-MM-DD
creditNoteTextNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming write behavior, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., whether the invoice is marked as credited) or any irreversible actions.

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 sentence that is clear and direct, with no unnecessary words. It perfectly front-loads the core action.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on post-creation behavior (e.g., response format, whether the credit note is finalized) and prerequisites (e.g., invoice existence).

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?

The input schema already describes 2 out of 3 parameters (invoiceId and issueDate), providing meaningful definitions. The tool description does not add extra context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'creates', the resource 'credit note', and the scope 'covering the full amount of an invoice'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'fiken_create_partial_credit_note'.

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 usage for full credit notes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it (e.g., if a partial credit note is needed).

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