get_invoiceFetch a previously generated invoice by its invoice_id and return its current metadata plus a freshly signed download URL. Read-only and tenant-scoped — cross-tenant lookups return 404. Use this after create_invoice to re-download bytes from a different device, or to obtain a new signed URL after the original expires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it returns current metadata plus a freshly signed URL, and is tenant-scoped. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value. No 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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return value, and constraints. Annotations provide additional safety. Fully complete.
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?
Only one parameter, invoice_id, mentioned in description with context that it is from create_invoice. Schema provides format uuid, but description adds usage context. Schema coverage 0%, so description compensates adequately.
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 clearly states it fetches a previously generated invoice by its invoice_id and returns metadata plus a signed download URL. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is used after create_invoice, and other siblings are unrelated.
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?
The description explicitly says to use this tool after create_invoice to re-download or obtain a new signed URL. It also notes that cross-tenant lookups return 404, implying it should only be used within the same tenant. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but overall clear.
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.
Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose: creating invoices, retrieving them, listing supported jurisdictions, and verifying email codes. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (create_invoice, get_invoice, list_supported_jurisdictions, verify_email_code), making the set predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for invoice generation and retrieval, covering the essential operations without excess or deficiency.
The set covers core invoice creation, retrieval, jurisdiction queries, and the verification flow. A listing tool is missing, but for a Phase 1 server focused on individual invoices, the surface is largely complete.