Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

lexware-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Credit Note

lexware_create_credit_note

Create a credit note in Lexware, either as a draft or finalized immediately. Supports Lexware text formatting for descriptions and remarks.

Instructions

Create a new credit note in Lexware; finalize=true finalizes at creation, false or omitted creates a draft. In introduction, lineItems[].description, and remark, use only Lexware formatting: bold, italic, and dash-prefixed list items separated by newlines.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesCredit note JSON body with voucherDate, address (contactId or manual fields), lineItems (name, quantity, unitPrice), totalPrice, and taxConditions. In introduction, lineItems[].description, and remark, use only Lexware formatting: **bold**, __italic__, and dash-prefixed list items separated by newlines.
finalizeNoWhen true, finalize the credit note at creation via ?finalize=true. When false or omitted, create as draft.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv5.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"Credit note JSON body. Key fields: voucherDate, address (object with contactId or manual fields), lineItems (array with name, quantity, unitPrice, etc.), totalPrice (object), taxConditions (object). See Lexware API docs for full schema."New value: +"Credit note JSON body with voucherDate, address (contactId or manual fields), lineItems (name, quantity, unitPrice), totalPrice, and taxConditions. In introduction, lineItems[].description, and remark, use only Lexware formatting: **bold**, __italic__, and dash-prefixed list items separated by newlines."
    • addedInput schema / properties / finalize
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, finalize the credit note at creation via ?finalize=true. When false or omitted, create as draft.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail the annotations do not carry: that omission of finalize silently yields a draft, and that the created document's text fields must obey a restricted markup dialect. It does not mention reversibility of finalizing or auth/permission needs.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler; the operational guidance (finalize behavior) is front-loaded ahead of the formatting constraint. The formatting sentence is verbatim-duplicated from the body schema description, which costs a little against strict conciseness.

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?

For a create tool with a required nested body object and no output schema, the description covers the draft/finalize branch and the text-formatting contract but says nothing about what the call returns or requires afterward (e.g., the new credit note id, or that a subsequent get/deeplink call is needed). It is adequate but leaves the post-creation workflow unspecified.

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% and both parameters (body, finalize) are already documented in the schema, so the description's restatement of the finalize semantics and the Lexware formatting rule adds wording but no semantics beyond the structured fields. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new credit note") and immediately qualifies the operation with the finalize flag, so the agent knows exactly what is being produced. It never names a sibling (e.g., lexware_create_invoice, lexware_create_quotation) to disambiguate when a credit note is the right document, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

It clarifies the draft-vs-finalized decision ("finalize=true finalizes at creation, false or omitted creates a draft"), which is real conditional guidance for one parameter. However there is no when-to-use framing relative to the other create_* document tools (invoice, quotation, order confirmation) that produce similar documents, so usage is only implied.

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