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

freeagent-mcp-server

by samaxbytez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

freeagent_update_credit_note

Destructive

Update an existing FreeAgent credit note by changing its date, comments, or payment terms to keep accounting records accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing credit note 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": {
      "credit_note_id": "<credit_note_id>"
    },
    "name": "freeagent_update_credit_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commentsNoComments or notes for the credit note
dated_onNoCredit note date in YYYY-MM-DD format
credit_note_idYesThe ID of the credit note to update
payment_terms_in_daysNoPayment terms in days

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 already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replacement, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what side effects a destructive overwrite may have. For a destructive mutation with four optional fields, that is a real gap.

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 key verb-resource pairing front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the agent with nothing beyond the structured fields to work with.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining partial-update semantics and expected outcome. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to infer behavior from annotations alone.

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%, so each of the four parameters (credit_note_id, dated_on, payment_terms_in_days, comments) is already documented with type and format. The description contributes no additional meaning, such as which fields are patchable or how date changes affect posting, 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing credit note') scoped to FreeAgent, which is enough to distinguish it from create/get/list/delete credit note siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 freeagent_create_credit_note, freeagent_delete_credit_note, or freeagent_get_credit_note, and no mention of prerequisites such as the note needing to exist or be in an editable state. The only implied usage is the word 'existing'.

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