Kema Invoice

Get rectification links

get_rectification_links

Read-only

For one invoice, return the rectification chain: the original it replaces (if it is a rectificative) and/or the rectificative that replaced it (if it was rectified). Both null when the invoice is not part of a chain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	The invoice UUID to inspect.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replaces`	Yes	Original invoice this one rectifies, null when not a rectificative.
`replacedBy`	Yes	Rectificative that superseded this invoice, null when not rectified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / invoice_id / description
```
Added value: +"The invoice UUID to inspect."
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "replacedBy": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "id": {
+              "description": "Invoice UUID.",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "invoice_number": {
+              "description": "Human-readable invoice number.",
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "id",
+            "invoice_number"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Rectificative that superseded this invoice, null when not rectified."
+    },
+    "replaces": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": false,
+          "properties": {
+            "id": {
+              "description": "Invoice UUID.",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "invoice_number": {
+              "description": "Human-readable invoice number.",
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "id",
+            "invoice_number"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Original invoice this one rectifies, null when not a rectificative."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "replaces",
+    "replacedBy"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the key behavior of returning null for both fields when the invoice is not part of a chain, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but for a simple read operation the null-return behavior is sufficient transparency.

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 a single well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and output conditions without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description explains the output semantics (original and replacement links, with null behavior) but does not mention the output schema structure or error cases. Since the tool has an output schema (per context signals) that is not shown, the description leaves a small gap about the exact return format. Overall, it is mostly complete for a simple read-only tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter invoice_id has a clear description ('The invoice UUID to inspect') and a precise format with a regex pattern. This fully explains the parameter's meaning and constraints, achieving 100% schema description coverage.

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 states the tool's function: to return the rectification chain for a given invoice, explicitly defining the original and replacement links. This is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like rectify_invoice (which modifies) and get_invoice (which retrieves invoice details).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool returns and the conditions under which outputs are null, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when needing to inspect rectification links, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling would be more appropriate.

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

All Kema Invoice tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.