Skip to main content
Glama
hlebtkachenko

POHODA MCP Server

pohoda_delete_invoice

Remove invoices from POHODA accounting software by specifying the invoice ID. This tool helps maintain accurate financial records by deleting specific invoices when needed.

Instructions

Delete an invoice from POHODA by ID. Requires the invoice ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesInvoice ID to delete (required)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `pohoda_delete_invoice` tool. It constructs an XML request to delete an invoice by its ID and handles the response.
    server.tool(
      "pohoda_delete_invoice",
      "Delete an invoice from POHODA by ID. Requires the invoice ID.",
      {
        id: z.number().describe("Invoice ID to delete (required)"),
      },
      async (params) => {
        try {
          const xml = buildImportDoc({ ico: client.ico }, (item) => {
            const inv = item.ele(NS.inv, "inv:invoice").att("version", "2.0");
            const actionType = inv.ele(NS.inv, "inv:actionType");
            const del = actionType.ele(NS.inv, "inv:delete");
            const filter = del.ele(NS.ftr, "ftr:filter");
            filter.ele(NS.ftr, "ftr:id").txt(String(params.id));
          });
          const response = await client.sendXml(xml);
          const result = extractImportResult(parseResponse(response));
          return result.success ? ok(`Invoice deleted successfully. ${result.message}`) : err(result.message);
        } catch (e) {
          return err((e as Error).message);
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description fails to disclose whether this is permanent/hard deletion versus soft deletion, whether it triggers cascading deletions of related records, or what authorization level is required.

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 two-sentence description is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the primary action. However, the second sentence ('Requires the invoice ID') is redundant given the schema's required field constraint and parameter description.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context. However, it omits behavioral details (success indicators, error conditions for non-existent IDs, concurrency implications) that would be expected given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter already documented as 'Invoice ID to delete (required)'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, merely restating that the ID is required, warranting the baseline score.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (Delete), resource (invoice), and system (POHODA). The tool name and description together clearly distinguish this from sibling operations like pohoda_create_invoice, pohoda_list_invoices, and pohoda_delete_address.

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?

While the resource (invoice) is clearly identified, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the invoice must be in a specific state to be deleted) or exclude cases where deletion might fail.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/hlebtkachenko/pohoda-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server