SAP Business One Order-to-Cash MCP Server

create_ar_invoice

Convert a delivery document into an accounts receivable invoice to speed up billing and keep the order-to-cash cycle moving.

Instructions

Generate an A/R invoice from a delivery document.

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": {
      "deliveryDocEntry": "<deliveryDocEntry>"
    },
    "name": "create_ar_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`docDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`dueInDays`	No
`deliveryDocEntry`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

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 disclosure burden. It reveals the tool creates an A/R invoice, but gives no information about side effects (e.g., posting to accounting, document status changes), prerequisites, or reversible behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. Every word carries meaning and there is no wasted content, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter documentation, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, error conditions, prerequisites, and behavioral details necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a real workflow.

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 description coverage is only 33%, with only docDate having a format hint. The description does not explain that deliveryDocEntry identifies the source delivery document or what dueInDays controls, although 'from a delivery document' hints at deliveryDocEntry. This partial hint is insufficient for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('A/R invoice'), and source ('delivery document'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The explicit 'A/R' distinguishes it from create_ap_invoice and other document-creation siblings without needing to inspect schemas.

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 use case is implied: generate a customer invoice from an existing delivery document. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as delivery confirmation. The context is clear enough to infer, but not stated.

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

Deploy Server