SAP Business One Order-to-Cash MCP Server

create_delivery

Create a delivery note from an open sales order, including carrier name, tracking number, and scheduled date as comments. Turns pending sales orders into shipment-ready delivery documents.

Instructions

Create a delivery note from an open sales order and attach carrier references in comments.

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": {
      "salesOrderDocEntry": "<salesOrderDocEntry>"
    },
    "name": "create_delivery"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`carrierName`	No
`scheduledDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD
`trackingNumber`	No
`salesOrderDocEntry`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says this is a create/write operation and mentions attaching carrier references in comments, but it does not explain effects on the sales order, reversibility, required permissions, or failure behavior.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds only meaningful detail about the source and side effect.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits any guidance on return values, expected behavior when the sales order is not open, and how optional parameters affect the resulting delivery note.

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 25%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters. It loosely maps 'carrier references' to carrierName and trackingNumber, but it never clarifies salesOrderDocEntry as an internal identifier or explains how scheduledDate relates to the delivery note.

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 states a specific verb ('Create'), a distinct resource ('delivery note'), and the source ('open sales order'). It also adds the side action of attaching carrier references in comments, which makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_sales_order or confirm_delivery_pod.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context by specifying the prerequisite that the sales order must be open. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the intended usage is evident from the domain and the sibling list.

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

Deploy Server