freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_mark_invoice_as_cancelled

Destructive

Cancels an invoice in FreeAgent using its invoice ID, marking it as cancelled when it should no longer remain active or collectible.

Instructions

Cancel an invoice in 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_mark_invoice_as_cancelled"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain what cancelling does to the invoice record, whether it is reversible, or whether downstream accounting entries are affected — meaningful gaps for a destructive mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely concise and informative.

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 destructive invoice mutation with no output schema, the description should at least state what cancellation does and how it differs from deletion. It omits this entirely, leaving the agent to guess at semantics and side effects.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the pattern and description already documenting invoice_id. The description adds no extra meaning about ID format or sourcing, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Cancel an invoice"), which is clearer than a bare status update. However, it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools like freeagent_delete_invoice, freeagent_update_invoice, or freeagent_mark_invoice_as_draft, which are all plausible 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to cancel versus delete or update an invoice, and no prerequisites or state requirements (e.g., whether the invoice must be unsent or unpaid). The choice among the many invoice-mutating siblings is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server