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

stripe-mcp-server

by udaykapur
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Finalize Invoice

finalize_invoice

Finalize a draft invoice to move it from draft to open status, enabling payment. Provide the invoice ID and optionally set auto-advance.

Instructions

Finalize a draft invoice so it can be paid. This transitions it from draft to open.

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": "finalize_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYesInvoice ID (in_...)
auto_advanceNoAuto-advance to payment after finalization
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for safe retries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the state transition (draft to open) but does not disclose potential side effects, irreversibility, or required permissions. Adequate but could be more detailed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two concise sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the finalized invoice object). For a simple state-changing tool, it is somewhat complete but lacks return value context.

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% and the description does not add any information beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (finalize), the resource (draft invoice), and the outcome (transitions to open, can be paid). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_invoice, void_invoice, and pay_invoice.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use: for draft invoices that need to become payable. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like pay_invoice, but the context is clear enough.

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