Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

lexware-mcp-server

by lazyants

Pursue to a Dunning

lexware_pursue_dunning

Create a dunning draft for a preceding invoice by providing its UUID and dunning details, enabling follow-up payment reminders without finalizing.

Instructions

Create a new dunning as a follow-up to a preceding invoice via the documented POST /dunnings?precedingSalesVoucherId={id} endpoint. Dunnings are always created in draft mode and do not need to be finalized.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesDunning JSON body. Key fields: voucherDate, address (object with contactId or manual fields), lineItems (array), totalPrice (object), taxConditions (object). See Lexware API docs for full schema.
precedingSalesVoucherIdYesUUID of the preceding invoice that this dunning is pursued from. Required by the Lexware API.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv5.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"Dunning JSON body. Same shape as lexware_create_dunning. See Lexware API docs for full schema."New value: +"Dunning JSON body. Key fields: voucherDate, address (object with contactId or manual fields), lineItems (array), totalPrice (object), taxConditions (object). See Lexware API docs for full schema."
  2. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description states that dunnings are created in draft mode and need not be finalized. This adds behavioral context not covered by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey endpoint, purpose, and draft mode behavior. No superfluous information.

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?

The description covers creation and draft mode but omits what the response contains (e.g., dunning ID), which is relevant given no output schema. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 descriptions already present. The description adds brief mention of key fields in the body but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool creates a dunning as a follow-up to a preceding invoice, referencing the specific endpoint. This distinguishes it from other voucher-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., create_invoice, create_credit_note).

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?

The description mentions using it as a follow-up to an invoice but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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