Sweeppea MCP

get_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the full detail of a single invoice: line items, payment info, public link, QR code, stats and event timeline. Use fetch_invoices first to get the invoice_token. Requires the Invoices module enabled on the account — on a 403 "module is not enabled" error, do NOT retry; tell the user to contact Sweeppea support. Set include_events and include_qr_code to false for a lighter payload when you only need the invoice fields. The event timeline is capped at the 200 most recent events. DISPLAY RULE: never show InvoiceToken/PublicToken UUIDs; the PublicLink URL and InvoiceNumber ARE shareable.

get_invoice

When to use

Parameters to validate before calling

invoice_token (string, required) — The invoice token (UUID v4). Get it via fetch_invoices
include_events (boolean, optional) — Include the event timeline (optional, default true). Set false for a lighter payload
include_qr_code (boolean, optional) — Include the QR code as a data URL (optional, default true). Set false for a lighter payload

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoice_token`	Yes	The invoice token (UUID v4). Get it via fetch_invoices
`include_events`	No	Include the event timeline (optional, default true). Set false for a lighter payload
`include_qr_code`	No	Include the QR code as a data URL (optional, default true). Set false for a lighter payload

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and description adds the event timeline cap of 200 events, the display rule about UUIDs vs public link, and the 403 handling. This enriches the behavioral profile beyond the structured annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description duplicates the exact same text in the opening paragraph and the 'When to use' section, and the parameter section repeats schema descriptions. While structured, the redundancy means not every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description lists the returned invoice fields (line items, payment info, public link, QR code, stats, event timeline) and notes the 200-event cap, error handling, and display rules. This gives an agent enough context to anticipate return content and constraints.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions, including 'Get it via fetch_invoices' and 'Set false for a lighter payload.' The tool description repeats these same details verbatim, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Fetch the full detail of a single invoice' and enumerates contents (line items, payment info, public link, QR code, stats, event timeline). It distinguishes from sibling fetch_invoices by positioning itself as the single-invoice follow-up.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use fetch_invoices first, and gives error-handling guidance (do NOT retry on 403, contact support). It also advises setting include_events and include_qr_code to false for lighter payloads, providing clear when-to-use context.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?