fiken-mcp

fiken_create_invoice_from_draft

Finalize a draft invoice by providing its unique draft ID, converting it into a finalized invoice ready for sending.

Instructions

Creates a finalized invoice from a draft

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": {
      "draftId": "<draftId>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_create_invoice_from_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`draftId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, already signaling this is a write operation. The description reiterates that it 'Creates' something, but adds no further behavioral context such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., draft deletion), or irreversibility. It adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it omits useful details that could be added without much bloat, so it cannot be a perfect 5.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what happens after creation (e.g., whether the draft is consumed or remains), any prerequisites (existing draft), and the return value (e.g., the new invoice's ID). None of this is provided, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The single parameter 'draftId' is an integer with no description in either the schema (0% coverage) or the tool description. The name suggests it is the ID of the draft to finalize, but the description does not confirm this, explain where to obtain the ID, or clarify any constraints (e.g., must be for an invoice draft, not a credit note draft).

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 'Creates a finalized invoice from a draft' uses a specific verb ('Creates') and specifies the resource ('finalized invoice') and source ('from a draft'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like fiken_create_invoice (creates directly) and fiken_create_invoice_draft (creates a draft).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain that the user should first create a draft using fiken_create_invoice_draft before calling this tool, nor does it mention the state of the draft after conversion (e.g., whether it is automatically deleted).

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

Deploy Server