MCP VTEX Server

vtex_invoice_order

Add invoice details to VTEX orders, including invoice number, value, URL, and tracking information for order processing and documentation.

Instructions

Add invoice to an order

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "orderId": "<orderId>",
      "invoiceNumber": "<invoiceNumber>",
      "invoiceValue": "<invoiceValue>"
    },
    "name": "vtex_invoice_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orderId`	Yes	Order ID
`invoiceNumber`	Yes	Invoice number
`invoiceValue`	Yes	Invoice value
`invoiceUrl`	No	Invoice URL
`trackingNumber`	No	Tracking number
`trackingUrl`	No	Tracking URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add invoice' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if an invoice already exists. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks context on behavior, error conditions, return values, and usage guidelines. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more completeness than provided.

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%, with all parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where 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 clearly states the action ('Add invoice') and target resource ('to an order'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'vtex_cancel_order' or 'vtex_get_order', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'vtex_cancel_order', 'vtex_get_order', and 'vtex_start_handling', there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for invoice addition.

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

Deploy Server