Skip to main content
Glama

Invoice Duplicate Recovery

Server Details

Computes exact overpayments across caller-supplied approved invoices, payments, and recorded cred...

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Available Tools

1 tool
invoice_duplicate_recoveryA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Computes exact overpayments across caller-supplied approved invoices, payments, and recorded credits, and produces an evidence bundle for requesting vendor credit review. Never sends requests, never asserts legal refund entitlement, and never takes automatic financial action. Price: 0.05 USDC per completed bounded job on Base.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
creditsNo
invoicesYes
paymentsYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by confirming it never sends requests and never takes automatic financial action, and it discloses a 0.05 USDC pricing charge on Base. It stops slightly short of detailing the exact output bundle shape, but the non-action boundaries are transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three sentences: intended computation, explicit non-behaviors, and price. The non-behaviors are front-loaded immediately after the purpose. The pricing sentence is separate and could arguably be moved to annotations, but it is one short sentence and earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description could mention what the evidence bundle looks like, but the core invocation semantics and constraints are well covered. The bounded-job pricing is included. The only real gap is a more concrete description of the return value structure, which is partly offset by the clear purpose and non-action boundaries.

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 0%, so the description carries some burden. It names approved invoices, payments, and recorded credits as the inputs, matching the three parameters. However, it does not add meaning about the 'caller-supplied' format (IDs, currency, amount exactness) beyond what the schema itself already documents in each property.

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 uses a specific verb ('Computes exact overpayments...produces an evidence bundle') and identifies the resource/domain (approved invoices, payments, recorded credits). It clearly distinguishes scope and non-scope, e.g., 'Never sends requests, never asserts legal refund entitlement, and never takes automatic financial action' — no sibling differentiation needed since none exist.

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?

The description clarifies exactly when to use the tool: when computing overpayments and producing evidence for vendor credit review. It explicitly excludes use cases requiring sending requests, asserting legal entitlement, or automatic financial action, so an agent knows not to invoke it for those outcomes.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool update
    • First observedinvoice_duplicate_recovery

Frequently Asked Questions

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An accounting-ops agent that reconciles payments against open orders, auto-books provably safe payments through a deterministic policy gate, and escalates exceptions to a human queue with audit trails.
    MIT
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Self-serve MCPB demo for accounts payable invoice exception review. It performs deterministic matching across invoice, purchase order, goods receipt, vendor master, invoice history, tax code master, and payment rules.
    -
  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    Matches expected payments (pain.001) against observed booked entries (camt.053) for ISO 20022 cash reconciliation, providing explainable match results with scoring and classification.
    10
    1
    -
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables read-only investigation of payment transactions by building normalized timelines, detecting anomalies like duplicate charges and stuck refunds, and creating diagnostic escalations for human review. Never executes or modifies payment actions.
    -
Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with others. The tool's description clearly defines its exact purpose and boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool name leaves no room for inconsistency. The name invoice_duplicate_recovery directly mirrors the server's purpose.

Tool Count4/5

The count is below the typical 3-15 range, but the server is intentionally a single-purpose microservice. One tool fully addresses the narrow scope, making it slightly under but reasonable.

Completeness5/5

The tool completely covers the server's stated function: computing overpayments and producing an evidence bundle. It explicitly avoids actions outside its scope, so there are no missing operations within the defined domain.

Resources