Skip to main content
Glama

xero_payments_create

Record a payment against an invoice by specifying invoice ID, bank account, amount, and date.

Instructions

Create a new payment in Xero. Records a payment against an invoice.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
InvoiceIDYesThe invoice ID to apply the payment to (required)
AccountIDYesThe bank account ID the payment is made from/to (required)
AmountYesPayment amount (required)
DateYesPayment date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required)
ReferenceNoPayment reference

Implementation Reference

  • Tool schema definition for xero_payments_create: defines name, description, and inputSchema with required fields InvoiceID, AccountID, Amount, Date and optional Reference.
    {
      name: "xero_payments_create",
      description:
        "Create a new payment in Xero. Records a payment against an invoice.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          InvoiceID: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The invoice ID to apply the payment to (required)",
          },
          AccountID: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The bank account ID the payment is made from/to (required)",
          },
          Amount: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Payment amount (required)",
          },
          Date: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Payment date in YYYY-MM-DD format (required)",
          },
          Reference: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Payment reference",
          },
        },
        required: ["InvoiceID", "AccountID", "Amount", "Date"],
      },
    },
  • Handler logic for xero_payments_create: extracts args, constructs a Payment object with Invoice, Account, Amount, Date, optional Reference, then POSTs to the Xero API 'Payments' endpoint.
    case "xero_payments_create": {
      const { InvoiceID, AccountID, Amount, Date, Reference } = args as {
        InvoiceID: string;
        AccountID: string;
        Amount: number;
        Date: string;
        Reference?: string;
      };
    
      const payment: Record<string, unknown> = {
        Invoice: { InvoiceID },
        Account: { AccountID },
        Amount,
        Date,
      };
      if (Reference) payment.Reference = Reference;
    
      const response = await client.post("Payments", {
        Payments: [payment],
      });
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:32-32 (registration)
    Import of paymentTools and handlePaymentTool from the payments domain module.
    import { paymentTools, handlePaymentTool } from "./domains/payments.js";
  • src/index.ts:79-80 (registration)
    paymentTools is included in the tools list via getDomainTools('payments') which returns the paymentTools array.
    case "payments":
      return paymentTools;
  • src/index.ts:261-262 (registration)
    Routing: tools starting with 'xero_payments_' are dispatched to handlePaymentTool, which handles the 'xero_payments_create' case in a switch statement.
    if (name.startsWith("xero_payments_")) {
      return await handlePaymentTool(name, toolArgs);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur (e.g., changing invoice status).

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?

Two short, direct sentences with no unnecessary words. The key information is front-loaded.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, or what constitutes a successful payment creation.

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 the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 'create' and the resource 'payment', and specifies that it records against an invoice. This distinguishes it from sibling get/list tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updating invoice status directly). No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wyre-technology/xero-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server