mcp-server-smallinvoice

get_invoice_payment

Read-only

Retrieve payment details for a specific invoice using invoice and payment IDs.

Instructions

Returns data of specified invoice's payment

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": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>",
      "payment_id": "<payment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_invoice_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoice_id`	Yes	invoice ID
`payment_id`	Yes	payment ID
`with`	No	Comma separated, optional keys that should be included in the response.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description 'Returns data' is consistent but adds no new behavioral details such as permissions, rate limits, or data freshness. It 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?

Single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. No superfluous information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple read tool with comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, the description is adequate. It does not elaborate on return format or error conditions, but these are not critical for safe invocation given the read-only nature.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score applies.

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 verb 'Returns' and the resource 'data of specified invoice's payment'. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like list_invoice_payments, record_invoice_payment, and update_invoice_payment by specifying it returns a single payment's data.

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 implies usage by naming the required identifiers (invoice_id and payment_id) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_invoice_payments or get_invoice. No guidance on exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server