Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MYOB Codex MCP

MYOB Codex MCP

by jaeko44
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

myob_invoice_prepare_update

Prepare an update to a sales invoice and route it for approval before committing the change.

Instructions

Prepare update of a sales invoice. Requires approval before commit.

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": {
      "uid": "<uid>",
      "json_body": "<json_body>"
    },
    "name": "myob_invoice_prepare_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYes
layoutNoService
json_bodyYes
business_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase nature (prepare, then approval required before commit), which is valuable behavioral context. Yet it omits details on side effects, whether changes are staged or validated, and the exact approval process.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse and gets straight to the tool's purpose. However, it is so short that it omits any parameter or workflow hints that would be valuable without bloat.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested json_body, approval workflow, no annotations), the one-line description is insufficient. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks guidance on constructing the update and navigating the approval-commit cycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description offers no parameter-level detail. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'uid', 'json_body', 'layout', or 'business_id', leaving the agent to guess how to structure the update payload.

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 clearly states the verb 'prepare update' and the specific resource 'sales invoice', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, and generic entity updates. It precisely conveys what the tool does.

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 description notes the critical prerequisite 'Requires approval before commit', which helps the agent understand the workflow context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like myob_entity_prepare_update or how it fits with approval tools.

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