Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Invoice Settings

update_invoice_info
Idempotent

Modify company invoice settings like contact details, default template, email text, and footer. Pass only the fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update company invoice settings (contact details, default template, invoice/balance email text, footer). Pass only the fields to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
faxNoContact fax
emailNoContact email
phoneNoContact phone
addressNoCompany address shown on invoices
webpageNoCompany web page
cl_templates_idNoDefault sale-invoice template ID
balance_email_bodyNoDefault body for balance-reminder emails
invoice_email_bodyNoDefault body for invoice emails
invoice_company_nameNoCompany name shown on invoices (pass null to clear)
balance_email_subjectNoDefault subject for balance-reminder emails
invoice_email_subjectNoDefault subject for invoice emails
balance_document_footerNoFooter text on balance documents

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.25.7
    • removedInput schema / properties / invoice_company_name / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoice_company_name / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  3. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by clarifying that this is a merge-style partial update ('Pass only the fields to change'), implying unspecified fields are preserved. It stops short of noting that null clears a field (only the schema says so) or describing the response.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and scope, the second states the invocation rule. Front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no required fields, complete schema documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is close to sufficient. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't mention the null-clears-field semantics or that this is a company-level (not per-invoice) setting, but the schema and annotations cover most of what an agent needs.

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% and all 12 parameters are individually documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only groups them into categories (contact, template, email text, footer) without adding syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update company invoice settings') and enumerates the affected areas (contact details, default template, invoice/balance email text, footer), which maps cleanly onto the schema properties. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the read counterpart get_invoice_info or from update_invoice_series, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Pass only the fields to change' is a genuine usage instruction that tells the agent to send a partial patch rather than a full object. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisite context (e.g. connection/company scoping), and no mention of the read tool that would be used to discover current values.

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