freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_delete_invoice

Destructive

Delete an invoice from FreeAgent by invoice ID to remove incorrect or unneeded records from your accounting data.

Instructions

Delete an invoice from FreeAgent

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": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_delete_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	The invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to a sent/paid invoice, or whether linked records are affected — all of which matter for a destructive operation.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the operation is front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information a destructive tool should carry.

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?

For a one-parameter delete tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. However, it leaves out irreversibility and the cancel-vs-delete distinction that would materially change an agent's choice.

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?

The single parameter invoice_id has 100% schema description coverage and a format pattern, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('invoice') scoped to FreeAgent, so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not distinguish this from the sibling freeagent_mark_invoice_as_cancelled or freeagent_update_invoice, which are plausible near-alternatives for the same resource.

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 delete versus when to use freeagent_mark_invoice_as_cancelled, freeagent_mark_invoice_as_draft, or freeagent_update_invoice. No prerequisites or warnings are given, so the agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server