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

Check purchase invoices for duplicates by matching supplier, invoice number, amount, and date to prevent duplicate payments.

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

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the matching criteria and does not disclose output format, ordering, or duplicate-result semantics, which are not covered by annotations due to no output schema.

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?

One tight sentence with a front-loaded verb and resource plus the four matching criteria. No filler or repeated annotation information.

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, an agent cannot tell whether the tool returns a boolean, a list of duplicate candidates, or a match count; that is a meaningful gap for a detection tool. The parameter meanings and safety profile are well covered by the schema and annotations, so the tool is callable but not fully self-explanatory.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's high-level mention of supplier, invoice number, amount, and date maps to the parameters, but it adds little over the schema descriptions, which already explain matching behavior such as ±7 days for amount matching.

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?

The description names a specific action ('Check duplicate purchase invoices') and lists the matching dimensions (supplier, invoice number, amount, date), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling invoice tools such as validate_invoice_data or cleanup_camt_possible_duplicate.

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 intended use is implied: call this when an incoming purchase invoice needs to be checked against existing invoices for duplicates. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools for similar invoice-validation work.

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