Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Detect Duplicate Purchase Invoices

detect_duplicate_purchase_invoice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify duplicate purchase invoices by comparing supplier, invoice number, amount, and date to prevent double entries.

Instructions

Check duplicate purchase invoices by supplier, invoice number, amount, and date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
date_toNoEnd date
date_fromNoStart date
clients_idNoFilter by supplier ID
gross_priceNoIncoming gross amount to match against existing invoices
invoice_dateNoIncoming invoice date (YYYY-MM-DD); limits amount matches to ±7 days
invoice_numberNoIncoming invoice number to match against existing invoices

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.27.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoice_date
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Incoming invoice date (YYYY-MM-DD); limits amount matches to ±7 days",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the purpose line: it doesn't say what a result looks like (boolean vs. matched invoices), whether all keys must be supplied, or how partial matches are treated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than wordy, but as a structure/conciseness judgment it is clean and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place the return value could be described, yet it is silent on output shape. Combined with 6 optional parameters and no stated interaction between the date-range filters and the ±7-day window, it is minimum-viable rather than complete.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the non-obvious 'invoice_date limits amount matches to ±7 days' and the date_from/date_to range. The description merely echoes the match keys and adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (check/detect duplicates) and resource (purchase invoices), plus the four matching keys it compares. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like validate_invoice_data or cleanup_camt_possible_duplicate, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The intent (verify an incoming invoice is not a duplicate before booking) is implied but never stated, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. Nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to validate_invoice_data or a plain list_purchase_invoices search.

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