Skip to main content
Glama
zeybekci-lab

Payables MCP

by zeybekci-lab

Related Servers

Alternatives to Payables MCP

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables LLM agents to query and reconcile an accounts-payable ledger through safe read-only SQL, deterministic invoice-to-payment matching, and exception explanations for underpayments, duplicates, currency mismatches, and overdue invoices. Ships with a synthetic ledger, golden-set evals, and a month-end review workflow so quality can be measured in CI.
      4
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables natural-language-driven purchase-to-pay workflows against mock procurement and payment APIs, including invoice matching, exception handling, human approvals, and idempotent payment scheduling with a tamper-evident audit log.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables an AI assistant to safely read and write small-business ERP data such as customers, appointments, invoices and bills, gated by OAuth 2.1, role-scoped tool registration, preview-and-confirm write approvals, masked personal data and an audit trail. Runs against an in-memory mock ERP with synthetic data so the safety patterns can be tried out immediately.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      B
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible agents such as Claude Desktop and Cursor to process invoices, list pending reviews, retrieve case details and risk signals, decide approvals or rejections, access masked vendor master data, and view AP dashboard metrics while resuming paused LangGraph workflows.
      MIT
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI models to three-way-match supplier invoices against purchase orders and goods received, returning deterministic approval, hold, or review decisions with human-readable reasons. It exposes tools to check invoices, list open purchase orders, and quote a plain-language matching policy, while never posting or paying anything.
      2
      MIT

    TDQS

    A3.5/5.0

    Scored across 11 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct roles (create/get/search bills, match against PO, check duplicates, recommend approval, release payments). The only potential confusion is between check_duplicates and match_invoice, both bill-validation steps, but their descriptions ('earlier bills' vs 'PO and goods receipt') clearly separate them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_bill, search_bills, create_bill, match_invoice, request_payment_release). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs; the pattern is predictable throughout.

    Tool Count5/5

    11 tools is well-scoped for a payables/AP workflow. Each tool maps to a distinct step (bill CRUD, validation, approval recommendation, payment release, audit) and earns its place without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    Core bill lifecycle (create, get, search, validate, recommend, release) and audit are covered, but there is no update_bill/void, no vendor search or create (only get_vendor by id), and no explicit approve action. These are workable gaps for a controlled approval workflow but leave some dead ends.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues