xendit-mcp

create_invoice

Create payment invoices via Xendit by providing an external ID and amount. Supports currencies IDR, PHP, USD.

Instructions

Create a payment invoice via Xendit.

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": {
      "external_id": "<external_id>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "create_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Invoice amount
`currency`	No	Currency code (IDR, PHP, USD)	IDR
`description`	No	Invoice description
`external_id`	Yes	Unique invoice ID from your system
`payer_email`	No	Customer email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a payment invoice' without any disclosure of side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens upon success/failure. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is only one sentence, which is concise but arguably too brief. It lacks structure and fails to front-load key information. While it is not verbose, it under-delivers on content for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate parameter count (5), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error states, or any post-creation behavior. The tool needs more context to be effectively used.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 'Create a payment invoice via Xendit.' It clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (payment invoice). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_invoice and list_invoices, but lacks specificity about what a 'payment invoice' entails in Xendit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description does not differentiate use cases from siblings like create_disbursement or create_ewallet_charge.

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

Deploy Server