Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_create_invoice_batch

DestructiveIdempotent

Process up to 50 invoices in one batch: issue drafts or move them to a new status, with individual success/failure reported for each invoice.

Instructions

Applies one operation to a set of invoices of this company and reports, invoice by invoice, which succeeded and which failed.

  • Operations: ISSUE issues the draft invoices; STATUS moves them to the new_status given in the body.

  • Limit: up to 50 invoices per request (invoice_ids).

  • Not atomic: each invoice is processed on its own, and since issuing is irreversible, the ones already issued stay issued if a later one fails.

  • Related: downloading PDFs, sending email and exporting are not operations of this batch — use …/invoices/pdf-archive, …/invoices/deliveries and …/invoices/exports.

Endpoint: POST /v1/companies/{company_id}/invoices/batches

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
company_idYesUnique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed.
idempotency_keyNoOptional idempotency key for this operation. Omit it and one is derived from the request itself, which makes a blind retry safe but also collapses a SECOND, deliberately identical operation into the first for 24 hours. Set it — to an order id, or anything unique per intended operation — whenever you mean to create something that may look identical to what you just created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / $defs / CreateInvoiceBatchRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / CreateInvoiceBatchRequest / properties / payment_date / example
      Removed value: -"2025-01-15"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / UUID / example
      Removed value: -"550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / company_id / description
      Previous value: -"NIF (company) the operation acts on. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A NIF you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a NIF that does not exist, so the existence of a NIF in another account is never disclosed."New value: +"Unique identifier (UUID) of the company the operation acts on — its identifier, not its NIF. It is the only source of context: the account that owns it is derived from it, and the `BeeL-Active-Company` header plays no part. A company you do not reach answers `403`, and so does a company that does not exist, so the existence of a company in another account is never disclosed."
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the non-read-only and destructive annotations, the description discloses non-atomic processing, per-item success/failure reporting, irreversibility of ISSUE, and the 50-invoice limit. This is exactly the kind of operational context an agent needs and is not visible from annotations or schema alone.

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 opening sentence is a clear summary, and the bullets contain only constraints and non-obvious behavior. The endpoint line adds useful orientation. There is no filler and no duplication of schema details.

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 two-operation batch tool with conditional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core decision, limits, atomicity, irreversibility, per-item result reporting, and related endpoints. Conditional details like `payment_date` and idempotency are already documented in the input 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?

The description adds meaning around `operation` and `invoice_ids`: it explains the ISSUE/STATUS choices, ties `new_status` to STATUS, and restates the 50-invoice bound. The schema already gives strong descriptions for `payment_date`, `idempotency_key`, and `company_id`, so at 67% schema coverage the description compensates for the remaining gap without unnecessary repetition.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: applying an operation to a set of invoices and reporting per-invoice success/failure. The bullets further narrow the operations to ISSUE and STATUS, making it clearly distinct from single-invoice tools like beel_issue_invoice or beel_set_invoice_status.

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 'Related' bullet explicitily excludes PDF downlads, email, and exports and points to their own endpoints, preventing the most likely misuses. It does not explicitily contrast single-invoice alternatives in the sibling list, but the 'set of invoices' and 50-invoice limit make the batch use case clear enough.

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/beel-es/beel-mcp'

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