e-arveldaja MCP Server

Delete Sale Invoice

delete_sale_invoice

Destructive

Deletes a sales invoice from e-arveldaja by its object ID, removing the specified invoice from financial records.

Instructions

Delete a sales invoice

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_sale_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Object ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2Oct 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.18.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the deletion is irreversible, whether documents/numbering are released, or what happens if the invoice is confirmed. For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with zero description-side context, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing beyond the obvious is stated.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent delete with no output schema, the description should at minimum flag irreversibility and the alternative (invalidate) or prerequisite state. None of that context is present, so an agent cannot confidently choose this tool over its siblings.

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?

Only one parameter (id) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the input. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 applies; the description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a concrete verb and resource (delete a sales invoice), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool title and offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as invalidate_sale_invoice, delete_purchase_invoice, or batch_delete_transactions.

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 invalidate_sale_invoice or confirm_sale_invoice, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether only draft/unconfirmed invoices can be deleted). The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server