Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_mark_invoice_as_sent

Mark an invoice as sent in FreeAgent using its invoice ID to update its status after delivery.

Instructions

Mark an invoice as sent 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_sent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYesThe invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The critical behavioral question for a 'mark as sent' action — whether an email is actually delivered to the customer or only the status/date is recorded internally — is not addressed, nor is behavior if the invoice is already sent or in draft.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Brevity is achieved, though it comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail scored elsewhere.

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 state-mutating tool with no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (e.g., the updated invoice), what it changes, and whether side effects like customer notification occur. None of this is present, leaving the agent to guess at the outcome.

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% for the single invoice_id parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about accepted ID formats or where to obtain the ID, leaving the baseline score appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('an invoice') plus the target state ('as sent'), which is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as freeagent_mark_invoice_as_draft or freeagent_mark_invoice_as_cancelled, relying on the tool name alone for that distinction.

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 use this versus updating an invoice directly, versus marking it as draft or cancelled, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the invoice must be in a certain status). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools