Skip to main content
Glama
cledara-mcp

cledara-mcp

by ilyesBen

Card payments missing invoices

missing_invoices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find card payments in a date range that have no invoice uploaded, with totals per currency for month-end close. Defaults to the last 30 days.

Instructions

Card payments (cardSend) in a date range that have no invoice uploaded, newest first, with totals per currency. Useful for month-end close. Defaults to the last 30 days.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "missing_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoEnd of range (inclusive): YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) or an RFC 3339 timestamp.
fromNoStart of range (inclusive): YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) or an RFC 3339 timestamp.
applicationIdsNoOnly include transactions for these application IDs (from list_applications).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: sort order (newest first), per-currency aggregation, and the default 30-day window. It does not mention pagination or any cap on returned rows, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core definition (what qualifies as a result) before the use case and the default. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (newest first, totals per currency). All three parameters are optional and fully documented in the schema. The only missing piece is any indication of result limits or pagination for large date ranges.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents from/to formats and that applicationIds comes from list_applications. The description adds the one thing the schema omits — the default range of the last 30 days — which meaningfully changes how an agent invokes it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: card payments (cardSend) with no invoice uploaded, in a date range, returned newest first with totals per currency. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_transactions (all transactions) and spend_summary (aggregate spend), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Useful for month-end close" gives an explicit usage context, and "Defaults to the last 30 days" tells the agent it can be called with zero arguments. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer for a broader transaction listing, so it stops short of a 5.

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