Skip to main content
Glama

bill_create_or_update

Destructive

Create a new bill or update an existing one in LibreNMS, specifying name, ports, type (quota or CDR), and optional billing details.

Instructions

Create or update a bill in LibreNMS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYesBill payload fields: - bill_id (for updates only): Existing bill ID - bill_name (required for create): Bill name - ports (required for create): Array of port IDs to include - bill_type (required): "quota" or "cdr" (95th percentile) - bill_quota (required if quota type): Quota in bytes - bill_cdr (required if cdr type): Committed data rate - bill_day (optional): Billing day of month (1-31) - bill_custid (optional): Customer ID reference - bill_ref (optional): Billing reference - bill_notes (optional): Notes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and destructive potential (destructiveHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action, such as side effects or required permissions.

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 sentence of 6 words, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary information.

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?

Given the complexity of create/update with a rich payload and an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain behavior on existing bills, error conditions, or idempotency, though annotations and schema partially compensate.

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% via the payload property description, which details all fields. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (create or update) and the resource (bill) within LibreNMS, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bill_delete, bill_get, etc.

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 or updating bills but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites. The payload field description hints at update via bill_id, but guidance is not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mhajder/librenms-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server