get-invoiceReturns one authorized invoice with bounded customer, job, payment-state, due-date, and line-item fields; payment links, addresses, and internal notes are excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | No | Invoice ID returned by search-invoices. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The read-only annotations already establish safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: results are limited to authorized invoices and certain sensitive/display fields are intentionally absent. It does not describe error behavior or auth failure modes, but for a simple read-by-ID tool with safety annotations this is a small gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence earns its place: it names the action and resource, states the available fields, and lists exclusions. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with read-only annotations, the description gives enough shape of the response by listing the field groups and exclusions. There is no output schema, but the high-level return contract is clear; the main omission is explicit confirmation that invoice_id is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter is fully documented by the schema ('Invoice ID returned by search-invoices'), so the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Returns one authorized invoice') and then narrows the contract by naming the included field groups and the excluded ones. This makes it easy to distinguish from siblings like search-invoices (list vs. one) and preview-invoice (bounded vs. excluded fields).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as the alternative for excluded fields such as payment links or addresses. The usage context is only implied by 'one authorized invoice' and by the schema note that invoice_id comes from search-invoices, which is adequate but leaves routing decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tool families are organized by resource and action (get/search/preview/reports), so most tools have a distinct purpose. A few near-overlaps exist—customer-service-requests vs search-service-requests and the many campaign preview/search tools—but descriptions generally clarify boundaries.
The set consistently uses kebab-case with recognizable prefixes like get-, search-, preview-, and reports-, making intent predictable. A few noun-phrase tools (complaint-recall-risk, customer-service-requests, operations-parts, jobs-today) break the verb-first pattern, but they remain readable and grouped.
45 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and creates a large surface for agents to navigate, even though the domain is broad. Many tools are narrow read-only variations (e.g., five preview-campaign tools, three reports-* tools), which inflates the count without adding fundamentally new capabilities.
As a read-only/insights server, the surface covers customers, jobs, quotes, invoices, leads, locations, service requests, reviews, campaigns, operations, and reporting with both search and detail access. Minor gaps exist—no get-* for campaign types or social drafts—but these align with the intentionally bounded, safe-read model.