Skip to main content
Glama
kmexnx

Invoice MCP Server

by kmexnx
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create_invoice_pdf generates a PDF file, get_invoice_template retrieves template structure, and send_invoice_email handles email delivery. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection unambiguous for an agent.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_invoice_pdf, get_invoice_template, send_invoice_email) with clear verbs and descriptive nouns. The naming is uniform and predictable throughout the set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the set feels thin for an invoice management server, lacking operations like updating, deleting, or listing invoices. While the tools cover core actions, the count is borderline low for typical domain coverage.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set has significant gaps for invoice management: it includes creation, template retrieval, and email sending, but misses essential CRUD operations (e.g., list_invoices, update_invoice, delete_invoice) and other lifecycle steps like payment tracking or status updates, which could lead to agent failures in workflows.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • 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 fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that sending email triggers external irreversible actions, potential for duplicate sends if retried, delivery status limitations, or authentication requirements.

    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?

    Extremely concise at seven words with no redundancy. However, the brevity constitutes under-specification rather than efficient information density given the tool's complexity.

    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?

    Inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and external side effects. No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding prerequisites, error cases, and return behavior.

    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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, which warrants the baseline score of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose3/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states the core action (create and send) and medium (email), but lacks specificity about the invoice content/structure and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'create_invoice_pdf' which presumably also creates invoices but does not send them.

    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 provided on when to use this versus 'create_invoice_pdf' or prerequisites like invoice validation. No mention of idempotency concerns for email sending or retry behavior.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but only states the basic action. It fails to specify where the generated file is stored (returned as binary, saved to disk, etc.), whether it overwrites existing files, or any idempotency characteristics.

    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?

    Extremely brief (5 words) and front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words or redundancy, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and contextual detail given the absence of annotations and output schemas.

    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?

    Inadequate for a file-generation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fails to hint at return values (file path vs. binary data) or explain relationships to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding.

    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 has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., no details on invoice_data structure or formatting constraints).

    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?

    States specific action (Generate) and resource (PDF invoice file). Clear and direct, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_invoice_template or send_invoice_email.

    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?

    Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to generate a PDF vs. sending an email or retrieving a template). No prerequisites or workflow context is mentioned.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. While 'Get' implies read-only and 'current' suggests temporal relevance, the description fails to disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the 'structure' actually contains (fields, schema, etc.).

    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?

    Single 9-word sentence is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb. However, given the absence of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves significant gaps rather than demonstrating efficient completeness.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    With no output schema and no annotations, the description should specify what the template structure includes or its format. 'Structure for reference' is vague and insufficient for an agent to predict the return value or utility of calling this tool before creating PDFs.

    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?

    Input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, 0 params = baseline 4. The description does not mention parameters (none exist), which is appropriate.

    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?

    Uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'invoice template structure'. Clearly identifies the operation and target resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings 'create_invoice_pdf' or 'send_invoice_email' in the description text (distinction relies on tool names).

    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?

    Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No mention of workflow sequence (e.g., whether to call this before create_invoice_pdf) or prerequisites. The phase 'for reference' hints at read-only usage but doesn't establish clear usage boundaries.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

invoice-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

invoice-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/kmexnx/invoice-mcp-server'

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