productive_get_invoiceRetrieve full invoice details by ID—line items, attributions, company, document type, and subsidiary—to inspect an invoice before cloning it.
Get full invoice details by ID, including line items, attributions, company, document type, and subsidiary. Use this to inspect an invoice before cloning it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The invoice ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read and it says what data is returned, but it never addresses permissions, behavior on a missing/invalid ID, or any rate/limits context.
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, front-loaded with the core lookup action and with the use-case hint appended. No filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 usefully previews the returned fields, which the schema cannot convey. The main gap is absent guidance on error/nonexistent-ID behavior.
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 coverage is 100% with a single documented 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that lookup is by ID and adds no format, prefix, or validation detail beyond the schema.
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+resource ('Get full invoice details by ID') and enumerates the notable content (line items, attributions, company, document type, subsidiary), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_invoices and the create/update invoice tools.
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?
Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this to inspect an invoice before cloning it'), which points the agent at the clone/create-from-previous flow. It doesn't name alternatives such as list_invoices or spell out when *not* to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.