wave-mcp-server

Record payment on Wave invoice

wave_record_payment

Destructive

Record a payment already received against an approved invoice in Wave. Preview changes first, then confirm to update the books without moving money.

Instructions

Record a payment the business has ALREADY received against an approved invoice. This changes the books; it does not move money. amount is in the invoice's currency and may not exceed the amount due. payment_account_id is the account the money landed in: wave_list_accounts with subtypes ["CASH_AND_BANK"]. This is a two-step tool: the first call (confirm omitted) returns a preview and a fingerprint and changes nothing. Show the preview to the user. Only after they agree, call again with confirm: true and the fingerprint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	Internal note on the payment
`amount`	Yes	Amount received, in the invoice currency, e.g. "1130.00"
`confirm`	No	Leave false to get a preview (nothing happens). Set true only after the user has seen the preview and agreed, and pass the preview's fingerprint.
`invoice_id`	Yes	Invoice ID exactly as returned by Wave (an opaque string)
`fingerprint`	No	The fingerprint returned by the preview call; required with confirm: true
`payment_date`	Yes	Date the payment was actually received (YYYY-MM-DD)
`exchange_rate`	No	Rate from the invoice currency to the deposit account's currency. Omit when they match. REQUIRED when they differ (e.g. a USD invoice paid into a CAD account); never guess it, ask the user.
`payment_method`	Yes	How it was paid; e-transfers are BANK_TRANSFER
`payment_account_id`	Yes	Deposit account ID exactly as returned by Wave (an opaque string)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`invoice`	No
`message`	Yes
`preview`	No
`fingerprint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the pass is book-only with no fund movement, the amount may not exceed the amount due, the first call changes nothing and returns a preview/fingerprint, and the second call requires explicit user approval. That is exactly the mutation-safety detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the safety distinction, then parameter constraints, then the two-step protocol. Every clause carries operational weight; nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, non-idempotent 9-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the confirmation workflow, and the currency/account constraints an agent must get right. Return-value explanation is correctly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it constrains amount to the invoice currency and caps it at the amount due, explains that payment_account_id is the deposit account and how to find one, and narrates the confirm/fingerprint pairing. It does not restate, only adds.

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?

States a precise verb and resource — recording an already-received payment against an approved invoice — and immediately scopes it with 'this changes the books; it does not move money,' which separates it from any money-transfer sibling. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Specifies the triggering condition (payment ALREADY received, invoice must be approved), the two-step invocation protocol (preview first, confirm + fingerprint only after user agreement), and names a concrete alternative for the dependent lookup (wave_list_accounts with subtypes ["CASH_AND_BANK"]). Nothing about when or how to call it is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server