Retrieve full details for a specific invoice, including line items, rates, quantities, taxes, and grand totals, to review or verify billing information.
Get full details of a specific invoice including all line items, rates, quantities, taxes, and grand totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_id | Yes | ||
| invoice_id | No | Invoice UUID | |
| invoice_number | No | Invoice number (e.g. INV-101) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It transparently describes what the tool returns, including the major invoice components. However, it does not disclose behavior for absent IDs, error handling, authentication needs, or whether the operation is strictly read-only beyond the conventional 'get' semantics.
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 filler. It front-loads the core action and then lists the specific data returned, which is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's output contents, but not the full context needed for a correct call. With no output schema and no annotations, the missing explanation of how to specify the invoice—and the odd required/optional parameter mix—leaves a meaningful gap, though the tool remains usable if the agent infers the intended identifiers.
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 only 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain that company_id is required, nor clarify that the invoice should be identified via invoice_id or invoice_number. Because both identifier fields are optional in the schema, an agent could mistakenly call with only company_id despite the description promising a specific invoice.
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 identifies the action ('Get full details') and the resource ('a specific invoice'), and enumerates the returned content (line items, rates, quantities, taxes, grand totals). It is distinguishable from the sibling search_invoices because this is about full detail of one invoice rather than searching, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 'of a specific invoice' implies the tool should be used when an agent already has an invoice in mind and needs complete details. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_invoices, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so the usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.