Skip to main content
Glama
beel-es

BeeL MCP server

Official
by beel-es
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

beel_patch_recurring_invoice

Partially update a recurring invoice template: change only the fields you send—lines, payment method, schedule, or recipient—while keeping all other settings intact.

Instructions

Updates only the fields present in the body, leaving every other field of the recurring invoice template as it is.

  • Omitted vs null: an omitted field keeps its current value; a field sent as null is cleared, and only where the request schema documents the field as nullable.

  • lines: replaced as a whole, not patched line by line. The recipient survives the change, and an empty array is rejected.

  • payment_method: replaced as a whole together with payment_iban, payment_swift and payment_term_days — send them in the same request or they are dropped.

  • Schedule: day_of_month and start_date stay put unless you send them; sending day_of_month moves the next generation. start_date is only editable while the template has not generated any invoice yet.

Endpoint: PATCH /v1/companies/{company_id}/recurring-invoices/{recurring_invoice_id}

⚠️ Fiscal guardrails — read before calling:

  • How BeeL derives the AEAT invoice type, and the rules each type imposes. (resource: beel://guardrails/invoice-types)

  • What regime_key means, where it lives, and which combinations are rejected. (resource: beel://guardrails/regime-keys)

For the exhaustive rules and worked examples, call beel_docs_search.

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.
recurring_invoice_idYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed14 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / ExemptionReason / example
      Removed value: -"EXENTA_ART_20"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / email_configuration / allOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/RecurringEmailConfigRequest"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / email_configuration / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "allOf": [
+      {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/RecurringEmailConfigRequest"
+      }
+    ],
+    "description": "Email delivery settings, replaced as a whole. Send `null` to stop sending the\ngenerated invoices by email.\n"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / email_configuration / description
      Removed value: -"Email delivery settings, replaced as a whole. Send `null` to stop sending the\ngenerated invoices by email.\n"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / payment_method / allOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "$ref": "#/$defs/PaymentMethod"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / payment_method / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "allOf": [
+      {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/PaymentMethod"
+      }
+    ],
+    "description": "Payment method. Replaced as a whole together with `payment_iban`,\n`payment_swift` and `payment_term_days`: send them in the same request or they\nare dropped. Send `null` to state that no payment method applies.\n"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • removedInput schema / $defs / PatchRecurringInvoiceRequest / properties / payment_method / description
      Removed value: -"Payment method. Replaced as a whole together with `payment_iban`,\n`payment_swift` and `payment_term_days`: send them in the same request or they\nare dropped. Send `null` to state that no payment method applies.\n"
    • removedInput schema / $defs / PaymentMethod / example
      Removed value: -"BANK_TRANSFER"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / RecurringLineRequest / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / $defs / RecurringLineRequest / properties / exemption_reason / $ref
      Removed value: -"#/$defs/ExemptionReason"
    • addedInput schema / $defs / RecurringLineRequest / properties / exemption_reason / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "$ref": "#/$defs/ExemptionReason"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • 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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing critical behavioral nuances: omitted vs null handling, whole-array replacement of lines, the payment_method group replacement trap, schedule behavior, and the start_date editability constraint. It also flags fiscal guardrails that must be read before calling. No contradiction with the annotations exists; readOnlyHint=false aligns with the update operation.

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 description is long but every section earns its place: it front-loads the central merge-patch rule, then covers the dangerous edge cases in bullets, and ends with a clear warning about fiscal guardrails. The formatting makes it scannable and the information density is high without being redundant. The endpoint line is helpful even though the schema already implies the resource.

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 complex partial-update tool with nested behavior and fiscal implications, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the patch model, the whole-replacement pitfalls, schedule constraints, and points to the guardrails and docs for exhaustive rules. Since there is no output schema, a return-value description would be nice but is not essential; the description already gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is low (33%), but the description compensates by explaining the most important parameter behaviors at the tool level: omitted vs null, lines replacement, payment_method group replacement, and schedule stability. The schema itself already documents many individual fields, and the description adds the cross-field interactions that are not visible from the schema alone. It does not list every parameter, but the ones it highlights are the ones most likely to cause incorrect calls.

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 identifies the operation as a partial update of a recurring invoice template and distinguishes it from a full replacement. It specifies the resource and the core behavior: only fields present in the body are updated, all others are preserved. This separates it from sibling tools like beel_patch_invoice, which targets invoices rather than recurring templates.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to patch a recurring invoice template without disturbing unspecified fields. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the patch semantics and resource are unambiguous. The pointer to beel_docs_search also helps route agents to additional guidance when exhaustive rules are needed.

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