mcp-saas-toolkit

stripe_create_invoice

Create invoices for Stripe customers with custom line items, amounts, and due dates. Optionally finalize and send automatically.

Instructions

Create and optionally finalize/send an invoice for a Stripe customer. Add line items with descriptions and amounts.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "stripe_create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	Internal memo or note
`items`	Yes	Invoice line items
`auto_send`	No	Automatically finalize and send the invoice. Default: false
`customer_id`	Yes	Stripe Customer ID (cus_...)
`days_until_due`	No	Number of days until invoice is due. Default: 30

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at optional finalization. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., email sending, invoice finalization irreversibility) or safety implications of creating an invoice.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences are efficient, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits details like return value (invoice ID or status), and the draft vs finalized behavior is only implied. For a creation tool with no output schema, more context would be helpful.

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%, so baseline applies. The description adds little beyond the schema; it mentions line items with descriptions and amounts, but this is already explicit in the schema.

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 the tool creates an invoice and optionally finalizes/sends it, with line items. However, it does not differentiate from other Stripe tools like stripe_create_payment_link, which are siblings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it is appropriate, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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