buchpilot-mcp

create_invoice

Create new invoices for your business by providing contact ID, date, and line items with net unit prices and tax rates. Optionally finalize the invoice to prevent further edits.

Instructions

Erstellt eine neue Rechnung mit Positionen. Creates a new invoice with line items.

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": {
      "contactId": "<contactId>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "lineItems": "<lineItems>"
    },
    "name": "create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`contactId`	Yes	Kontakt-ID des Rechnungsempfaengers
`date`	Yes	Rechnungsdatum (ISO 8601, z.B. 2026-03-18)
`lineItems`	Yes	Rechnungspositionen
`title`	No	Rechnungstitel
`introduction`	No	Einleitungstext
`remark`	No	Schlusstext
`currency`	No	Waehrung	EUR
`finalize`	No	Rechnung direkt finalisieren (nicht mehr editierbar)
`backend`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions creation without addressing side effects like finalization (non-editable), permissions, or reversibility. The 'finalize' parameter's impact is not described.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief but repeats the same purpose in two languages unnecessarily, wasting space. It could be more concise by using one language. Front-loading is adequate.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return value, side effects, or required relationships (e.g., contact must exist). Incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 89% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, achieving the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'creates' and the resource 'invoice', specifying 'with line items' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_quotation or create_voucher. 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for creating invoices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_quotation. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use is provided.

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

Deploy Server