Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
buchpilot-mcp

buchpilot-mcp

by makririch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_invoice

Update an existing draft invoice by modifying fields such as title, introduction, remark, or backend using the invoice ID.

Instructions

Aktualisiert eine bestehende Rechnung (nur Entwuerfe). Updates a draft invoice.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "update_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesRechnungs-ID
titleNo
introductionNo
remarkNo
backendNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
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 reveals that the tool mutates a draft invoice but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the key information. However, it redundantly repeats the same content in two languages, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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 lack of parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool effectively. It does not explain which fields are updatable or the effect of the update.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is only 20%, with only the 'id' parameter described. The description adds no information about the other four parameters (title, introduction, remark, backend), leaving their semantics entirely unclear.

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 tool updates an existing invoice and specifies the constraint 'nur Entwuerfe' (only drafts), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_invoice or get_invoice.

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 it should only be used for draft invoices, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for non-draft invoices. The guidance is minimal.

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