SAP Business One Order-to-Cash MCP Server

get_ap_aging

Group open purchase invoices by overdue days into aging buckets. View accounts payable aging as of a specific date.

Instructions

AP aging report — buckets open purchase invoices by overdue days.

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": "get_ap_aging"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asOfDate`	No	YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It adds genuine scope information ('open' invoices only, grouped 'by overdue days'), but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free report, and it does not disclose what the bucketed result actually contains (amounts, per-vendor, period ranges).

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?

One compact front-loaded sentence with zero waste. 'AP aging report' leads, followed by the scope (open purchase invoices) and the grouping key (overdue days); every word earns its place.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should convey more about return shape and safety. It states the domain and grouping but not the bucketing convention, the contents of the output, or that the call is non-destructive. Adequate for a one-optional-parameter read report, but with clear gaps.

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%: the single parameter asOfDate is fully documented with format (YYYY-MM-DD) and default (today). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the implied notion that aging is computed relative to a date, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (open purchase invoices) and behavior (bucketing by overdue days), anchored by the clear noun phrase 'AP aging report'. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling get_ar_aging through 'purchase invoices', but does not explicitly name that alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the 60+ siblings. No when/when-not conditions, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_ar_aging or get_purchase_analysis; the only routing signal is the tool name itself, which the agent already possesses.

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

Deploy Server