Skip to main content
Glama
joosthel

sevdesk-mcp

by joosthel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Diff a receipt folder against sevDesk

sevdesk_diff_receipt_folder
Read-only

Compare a local receipt folder against sevDesk vouchers and report missing files in both directions, matching by filename #reference first, then date and amount.

Instructions

Compare a local folder of receipt PDFs against the vouchers booked in sevDesk and report both directions: files that appear to have no voucher, and vouchers with no matching file. Matching uses the #reference in the filename first, then date + amount. Filenames are expected to look like '260626_Acme-Cloud_#INV-2043.pdf' or '2026-06-26_AcmeCloud_45.60.pdf'. Reads the filesystem but never writes; sevDesk access is read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoOnly consider vouchers up to this date.
fromNoOnly consider vouchers from this date on.
directoryYesAbsolute path to the folder holding the receipt files.
recursiveNoDescend into subdirectories (default false).
extensionsNoFile extensions to consider (default ['.pdf']).
maxVouchersNoSafety cap on vouchers examined (default 2000); the output flags when it was hit.
dayToleranceNoDays a file date may differ from the voucher date (default 5, 0-366).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / dayTolerance / description
      Previous value: -"Days a file date may differ from the voucher date (default 5)."New value: +"Days a file date may differ from the voucher date (default 5, 0-366)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / dayTolerance / maximum
      Added value: +366
    • addedInput schema / properties / dayTolerance / minimum
      Added value: +0
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxVouchers
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Safety cap on vouchers examined (default 2000); the output flags when it was hit.",
+  "maximum": 20000,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, open world), and the description usefully confirms it reads the filesystem but never writes and that sevDesk access is read-only. It additionally discloses the matching heuristic and expected filename formats, which are genuine behavioral traits beyond the annotations; only the output shape and cap-flagging behavior are left thin.

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?

Front-loaded with the core comparison, then matching rules and safety statement; every sentence carries information. Slightly dense, but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a seven-parameter diff tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is compared, both output directions, how matching works, and read-only guarantees. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is already earned. The description adds real value by explaining the matching strategy that governs dayTolerance and #reference parsing, plus concrete filename examples that tell the agent how files are interpreted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: compares a local receipt folder against sevDesk vouchers and reports missing files and missing vouchers. This is clearly distinct from siblings like sevdesk_list_vouchers or sevdesk_find_duplicates, and an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

The description makes clear when the tool applies: comparing a local PDF folder against booked vouchers, with the matching precedence (#reference first, then date + amount) spelled out. It does not name an alternative sibling or state exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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