Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-smallinvoice

mcp-server-smallinvoice

by AIWerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_activity

Read-only

Retrieve details of a specific activity entry using its activity ID. Optionally include additional fields by specifying them as a comma-separated list.

Instructions

Returns data of specified activity entry

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activity_idYesactivity ID
withNoComma separated, optional keys that should be included in the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of returning data is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., no mention of pagination, caching, or authentication). The description does not contradict annotations.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

For a straightforward get operation with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could hint at the optional 'with' parameter or output format, but is adequate overall.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states it returns data of a specified activity entry, using a specific verb (returns) and resource (activity entry). It distinguishes itself from sibling get_* tools by specifying 'activity' uniquely.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_activities or other get tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use advice provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools