Skip to main content
Glama
jdlar1

Siigo MCP Server

by jdlar1

siigo_get_credit_notes

Retrieve credit notes from Siigo accounting software to manage refunds, returns, and billing adjustments. Supports pagination for handling large datasets.

Instructions

Get list of credit notes from Siigo

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
page_sizeNoNumber of items per page

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function in SiigoClient that performs the GET request to the Siigo API endpoint for listing credit notes, using pagination parameters.
    async getCreditNotes(params?: { page?: number; page_size?: number }): Promise<SiigoApiResponse<any>> {
      return this.makeRequest<any>('GET', '/v1/credit-notes', undefined, params);
    }
  • MCP server wrapper handler that calls SiigoClient.getCreditNotes and formats the response as MCP content.
    private async handleGetCreditNotes(args: any) {
      const result = await this.siigoClient.getCreditNotes(args);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • src/index.ts:447-456 (registration)
    Tool registration in the MCP server's getTools() method, including name, description, and input schema.
      name: 'siigo_get_credit_notes',
      description: 'Get list of credit notes from Siigo',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          page: { type: 'number', description: 'Page number' },
          page_size: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of items per page' },
        },
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the siigo_get_credit_notes tool, specifying optional pagination parameters.
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          page: { type: 'number', description: 'Page number' },
          page_size: { type: 'number', description: 'Number of items per page' },
        },
      },
    },
  • Helper method used by all API calls, including getCreditNotes, to handle authentication and make HTTP requests with axios.
    private async makeRequest<T>(method: string, endpoint: string, data?: any, params?: any): Promise<SiigoApiResponse<T>> {
      await this.authenticate();
    
      try {
        const response: AxiosResponse<SiigoApiResponse<T>> = await this.httpClient.request({
          method,
          url: endpoint,
          data,
          params,
        });
    
        return response.data;
      } catch (error: any) {
        if (error.response?.data) {
          return error.response.data;
        }
        throw new Error(`API request failed: ${error.message}`);
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets list' without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of credit notes), pagination behavior, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add meaning beyond implying list retrieval, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of credit notes from Siigo'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'siigo_get_credit_note' (singular vs. plural), leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 like 'siigo_get_credit_note' or other list tools (e.g., 'siigo_get_invoices'). The description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering options, or comparison with siblings.

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