fiken-mcp

fiken_send_offer

Send an offer via email by specifying offer ID, recipient details, and delivery method (email or auto). Optionally include a custom message.

Instructions

Sends an offer via email

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": {
      "offerId": "<offerId>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "fiken_send_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	Yes
`message`	No
`offerId`	Yes
`recipientName`	No
`recipientEmail`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, consistent with sending (a write operation). The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects, or what happens upon error).

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?

The description is extremely short (6 words) but lacks critical information. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With no output schema, no parameter details, and only a vague purpose, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to correctly invoke this tool. A more complete description is needed for its 5 parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention any of the five parameters (method, message, offerId, recipientName, recipientEmail) or their meaning. The method parameter has an enum but is not described.

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?

The description clearly states 'Sends an offer via email' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fiken_send_invoice or fiken_send_credit_note, which have similar purposes.

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 (e.g., fiken_send_invoice). No prerequisites or context provided.

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

Deploy Server