Skip to main content
Glama
jdlar1

Siigo MCP Server

by jdlar1

siigo_delete_payment_receipt

Remove a payment receipt from Siigo accounting software by providing its ID to maintain accurate financial records.

Instructions

Delete a payment receipt

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPayment receipt ID

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function that extracts the payment receipt ID from arguments, calls SiigoClient.deletePaymentReceipt, and returns the formatted JSON response.
    private async handleDeletePaymentReceipt(args: any) {
      const result = await this.siigoClient.deletePaymentReceipt(args.id);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • SiigoClient method implementing the core logic: sends DELETE request to Siigo API endpoint /v1/payment-receipts/{id} using the shared makeRequest helper.
    async deletePaymentReceipt(id: string): Promise<SiigoApiResponse<any>> {
      return this.makeRequest<any>('DELETE', `/v1/payment-receipts/${id}`);
    }
  • Tool schema definition including name, description, and input schema requiring 'id' string for the payment receipt to delete.
    {
      name: 'siigo_delete_payment_receipt',
      description: 'Delete a payment receipt',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string', description: 'Payment receipt ID' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:135-136 (registration)
    Switch case registration in CallToolRequestSchema handler that dispatches to the specific handler function.
    case 'siigo_delete_payment_receipt':
      return await this.handleDeletePaymentReceipt(args);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or any rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context like success/failure behavior, error handling, or system impacts, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a payment receipt'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'siigo_delete_invoice' or 'siigo_delete_product' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating, making it insufficient for informed tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jdlar1/siigo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server