Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Confirm Purchase Invoice

confirm_purchase_invoice
Destructive

Confirm and lock an approved purchase invoice while preserving totals. Request a new preview to correct totals.

Instructions

Confirm and lock a purchase invoice without changing approved totals. Totals correction requires a fresh approved preview.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesObject ID
recalculate_totalsNo
approved_correctionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.25.7
    • removedInput schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_gross_price / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_gross_price / type
      Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_vat_price / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / approved_correction / properties / current_vat_price / type
      Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / approved_correction
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "approval_digest": {
+      "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{64}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "correction_required": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "current_gross_price": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "current_vat_price": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "invoice_id": {
+      "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "is_vat_registered": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "proposed_gross_price": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proposed_vat_price": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "invoice_id",
+    "is_vat_registered",
+    "current_vat_price",
+    "current_gross_price",
+    "proposed_vat_price",
+    "proposed_gross_price",
+    "correction_required",
+    "approval_digest"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / recalculate_totals
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal destructive/read-write behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false); the description adds that the action locks the invoice and does not change approved totals. It does not disclose irreversibility details or the role of the approved_correction object, but the 'lock' language and correction constraint add useful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core locking behavior is front-loaded. The statement earns its place and remains easy to parse.

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 the destructive annotation, nested object parameter, and absence of an output schema, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation: an agent cannot determine how to populate approved_correction, what recalculate_totals does, or what response to expect. It is adequate only as a high-level summary, not as a complete call specification.

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 only 33%: only id has a description ('Object ID'), while recalculate_totals and approved_correction are undocumented. The description hints at the approved-preview flow for corrections but never maps that to the approved_correction parameter or explains recalculate_totals, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Confirm and lock') and resource ('purchase invoice'), and clarifies that approved totals are preserved. The second sentence differentiates it from a totals-correction flow, so an agent can distinguish it from invalidate_purchase_invoice and preview_purchase_invoice_totals_correction.

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?

It sets clear context: confirmation is a locking action, and any totals correction must go through a fresh approved preview first, which points to preview_purchase_invoice_totals_correction. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when invalidation is preferred, but the key exclusion for correction is present.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools