elorus-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_bill

Creates a supplier bill (purchase invoice) using tax and document type IDs retrieved from list_taxes and list_document_types.

Instructions

Create a supplier bill (purchase invoice). Use list_taxes and list_document_types to obtain valid IDs before calling this tool.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "create_bill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a supplier bill', implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens on success/failure.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding relevant guidance. It is concise with no wasted words, but lacks necessary details for completeness.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is very thin. A creation tool typically needs to specify required inputs, return values, and error conditions. The description only hints at prerequisites but does not provide a complete understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% due to zero parameters, so baseline is 3. However, the description mentions using 'list_taxes' and 'list_document_types' to get IDs, suggesting required parameters that are missing from the schema. This contradiction reduces clarity and adds misleading information.

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 'Create a supplier bill (purchase invoice)', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_invoice' or 'create_credit_note'. However, the empty input schema contradicts the implication that parameters like tax and document type IDs are needed.

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 advises using 'list_taxes' and 'list_document_types' to obtain valid IDs before calling this tool, providing some prerequisite guidance. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_bill' or 'void_bill'.

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