Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Update Invoice Settings

update_invoice_info
Idempotent

Update company invoice settings by changing only the fields you need, including contact details, default template, invoice/balance email text, and footer.

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. 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"
+]
  2. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the partial-update behavior (only provided fields change), which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not mention other behaviors like validation failures or error responses, but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical partial-update instruction follows immediately. Every word contributes, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 partial-update tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and the key usage rule. It could be more explicit that these are company-wide settings or mention that no response is returned, but the combination of annotations, schema, and description provides enough to call it correctly.

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 each parameter already has a descriptive label. The description's instruction to 'pass only the fields to change' clarifies that all parameters are optional and that a subset can be sent, which is a meaningful addition. Baseline for full coverage is 3, and this modest extra guidance justifies that score.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('company invoice settings'), then enumerates the categories (contact details, default template, email text, footer). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_invoice_info and other update tools, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Provides a clear usage instruction: 'Pass only the fields to change.' This directly tells the agent how to perform a partial update, which is essential for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance (e.g., 'use get_invoice_info to read settings').

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