Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

lexware-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Invoice

lexware_create_invoice

Create a new invoice in Lexware, with an option to finalize it as open or save as a draft.

Instructions

Create a new invoice in Lexware; finalize=true creates status "open", false or omitted creates a draft, and the API cannot finalize an existing 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
bodyYesInvoice 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, creates the invoice in finalized "open" status. When false or omitted, creates as draft. Maps to the documented ?finalize=true query parameter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv5.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"Invoice 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: +"Invoice 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."
  2. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, so the description's added value is real: it discloses the status consequence of finalize and the irreversible one-way door (API cannot finalize an existing draft), plus a formatting contract that will presumably cause failures if violated. It stops short of describing auth scope, error behavior, or the response payload.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its status semantics, then the formatting contract. The formatting sentence is dense and largely duplicates the body schema description, which is slight redundancy, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a creation tool with a nested free-form body object and no output schema, the description covers the two highest-risk decisions: finalize vs draft and the text-formatting contract. It omits what the call returns (invoice id/deeplink) and any prerequisite ordering, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 the schema already documents both body and finalize in detail, including the same Lexware formatting rule repeated verbatim in the description. The description adds only the 'cannot finalize an existing draft' constraint, which is a behavioral rather than semantic addition, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a new invoice in Lexware') and immediately qualifies it with the finalize behavior. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lexware_create_credit_note or lexware_create_quotation by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Explains the meaning of finalize (true=open, false/omitted=draft) and the constraint that an existing draft cannot later be finalized, which implies the decision must be made up front. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. contact must exist first), and no mention of alternatives such as creating a quotation instead.

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