Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

lexware-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Pursue to a Dunning

lexware_pursue_dunning

Create a draft dunning from a preceding invoice ID, including body details and Lexware formatting, to pursue overdue payments. No finalization needed.

Instructions

Create a new dunning from an invoice via POST /dunnings?precedingSalesVoucherId={id}; dunnings are always created as drafts and do not need finalization. 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
bodyYesDunning JSON body with voucherDate, address (contactId or manual fields), lineItems, totalPrice, and taxConditions. In introduction, lineItems[].description, and remark, use only Lexware formatting: **bold**, __italic__, and dash-prefixed list items separated by newlines.
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 changedv5.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous 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."New value: +"Dunning JSON body with voucherDate, address (contactId or manual fields), lineItems, totalPrice, and taxConditions. In introduction, lineItems[].description, and remark, use only Lexware formatting: **bold**, __italic__, and dash-prefixed list items separated by newlines."
  2. 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."
  3. 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 only declare the generic write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds real behavioral facts beyond that: the result is always a draft and never requires a finalization step, plus formatting constraints accepted by the API. It does not cover auth requirements or failure behavior.

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 action and endpoint, followed by behavioral notes and formatting rules. Slightly redundant because the formatting sentence duplicates the body schema description, but nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter nested-body write tool with no output schema, the definition covers the key surprise (draft-only, no finalization) and content formatting. It omits what the call returns (draft dunning id/response shape) and any note on required invoice state or permissions, leaving modest gaps.

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 parameters, and the body description repeats the formatting sentence almost verbatim from the tool description. The one genuinely additive detail is mapping precedingSalesVoucherId into the query string of POST /dunnings.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a new dunning') and names the source object ('from an invoice'), plus the underlying endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling pursue_* tools by resource name, but never explicitly contrasts with lexware_pursue_invoice/credit_note/delivery_note when more than one could apply.

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 gives useful operational context — dunnings are always drafts and need no finalization — but does not say when to choose this over the other pursue_* siblings or what prerequisite state the source invoice must be in. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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