buchpilot-mcp

create_voucher

Create purchase invoices or credit notes for German accounting. Specify voucher type, date, gross amount, tax rate, and optional contact or remark.

Instructions

Erstellt einen neuen Beleg (Eingangsrechnung, Gutschrift). Creates a new voucher (purchase invoice, credit note).

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "totalGross": "<totalGross>"
    },
    "name": "create_voucher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	Belegtyp
`date`	Yes	Belegdatum (ISO 8601)
`totalGross`	Yes	Bruttobetrag
`taxRate`	No	Steuersatz in Prozent
`contactId`	No	Kontakt-ID (optional)
`remark`	No	Bemerkung
`backend`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 26, 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 must carry the full burden. It states it creates a new voucher but omits behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., auto-numbering), error conditions, or whether the contact must exist. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is concise with two short sentences (German and English). It is front-loaded with the key action, though no additional structural elements like bullet points are used. No redundant information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, success/failure behavior, or how the tool handles optional fields like contactId or remark. Completeness is lacking.

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?

The input schema covers 86% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides. The 'backend' parameter lacks a description in the schema, but the description does not compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 it creates a new voucher (purchase invoice or credit note). It uses the verb 'creates' and specifies the resource 'voucher', distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_invoice' (presumably sales invoices) and 'create_quotation'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_invoice' or 'create_quotation'. The description implies it's for purchase-related documents but does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server