Retrieve an accounts payable (AP) bill payment by ID from KikoBooks to view full payment details, including applied bills.
Get a bill payment (AP) by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full payment details including bill applications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payment_id | Yes | The bill payment ID to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it implies a read-only lookup by using 'Get' and it discloses that the payload includes bill applications, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether voided payments are returned, or error behavior for an unknown ID.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identity of the resource and its scope front-loaded before the return-value note.
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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is fetched, by what key, and roughly what comes back. The remaining gap is the relationship to the search/create/void siblings in the same family.
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 (payment_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it fully. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema states, which matches the baseline for a fully documented parameter.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a bill payment by ID') and tags it '(AP)', which separates it from AR-side siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent get_payment or search_bill_payments, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus search_bill_payments (to find an ID first) or get_payment (a different payment object). The description never names an alternative or a precondition beyond having an ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.