Retrieve a single KikoBooks invoice by ID to view line items, payments, credits, and balance due.
Get a single invoice by ID from KikoBooks. Returns full invoice details including line items, payments, credits, and balance due.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes | The Invoice 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; 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear and it goes beyond that by describing the returned payload (line items, payments, credits, balance due), which compensates for the absent output schema. It omits permission requirements and error behavior for a missing ID, keeping it from a 5.
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 tight sentences with the lookup key front-loaded and the return summary second; every clause earns its place with 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity and return shape adequately. Sibling routing (search_invoices) and failure behavior are the remaining minor gaps.
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 a single well-documented invoice_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' corroborates the schema but adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond it.
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 single invoice) plus the lookup key (by ID) and the source system, so the agent can distinguish it from search_invoices and update_invoice without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling search tool, so it is not a 5.
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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for direct retrieval when an identifier is already known, but the description never says when to prefer it over search_invoices or what to do if the ID is unknown. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.