fiken-mcp

fiken_create_sale_draft

Create a new sale draft with line items, payments, and customer details. Supports Norwegian VAT, KID, and account codes.

Instructions

Creates a new sale 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": {
      "cash": "<cash>",
      "paid": "<paid>",
      "lines": "<lines>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_create_sale_draft"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kid`	No	Norwegian KID number
`cash`	Yes
`paid`	Yes
`lines`	Yes
`dueDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`currency`	No	ISO 4217, e.g. "NOK"
`payments`	No
`contactId`	No	Contact ID
`projectId`	No
`invoiceNumber`	No
`invoiceIssueDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming mutation, but the description adds no further behavioral traits. It does not disclose what happens after creation, editability, or persistence details. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short but under-specified. A single sentence with no structure wastes the opportunity to provide critical information. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not provide enough value.

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?

Given 11 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no behavioral notes, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a sale draft is, its lifecycle, or expected return value.

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?

Schema coverage is 45%, leaving many parameters with minimal or no description. The description does not add any parameter context or clarify relationships between fields like cash, paid, and lines.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'creates' and resource 'sale draft'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fiken_create_invoice_draft or fiken_create_purchase_draft. The name provides some context, but a brief note on the nature of a sale draft would improve clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fiken_create_sale or fiken_create_invoice_draft. The description does not mention that sale drafts are preliminary records that can be finalized later.

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

Deploy Server