get_invoiceRetrieve the invoice for a delivered shipment (line items, taxes, payment status). Auth required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order_id | Yes | Order ID (typically the same as shipment_id) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds value by specifying the conditional context ('for a delivered shipment') and the need for authentication, which annotations do not cover.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
With no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning returned data (line items, taxes, payment status). However, it omits expected response format (e.g., JSON vs. file) and behavior for non-delivered shipments, leaving gaps for a one-parameter tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'order_id' fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'invoice for a delivered shipment', listing specific contents (line items, taxes, payment status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_documents' (general documents) and 'payment_status' (only status).
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 notes 'Auth required' and implies use after shipment delivery, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives (e.g., 'get_documents' for other shipment docs). No exclusions are provided.
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 clearly distinct purpose. Overlapping tools like batch_quote, compare_modes, and per-mode quote tools are clearly differentiated by their scope and use cases. Batch vs single booking are also distinct.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., batch_quote, list_bookings). A few like 'analytics' and 'events' are noun-only but still clear. Overall consistent with minor deviations.
26 tools cover a broad logistics domain including quoting, booking, tracking, documents, and account management. While slightly heavy, each tool serves a specific function and the count is reasonable for the scope.
The tool set appears complete for freight operations: all major modes quoted, single/batch/multi-stop booking, tracking, documents, invoices, history, and account management. No obvious missing CRUD operations.