Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_invoice_payment_lookups

Look up invoice payment details in Rocketmatter legal practice management.

Instructions

[Not in LCS /v1] Invoice-payment lookups. Fails loudly.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_invoice_payment_lookups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fails loudly' implies error behavior but does not explain what the tool does (e.g., reads data, requires auth, etc.). The description is almost entirely uninformative about behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short but includes unnecessary brackets '[Not in LCS /v1]' and the ambiguous 'Fails loudly.' It could be more structured and relevant. While concise, it sacrifices clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and an output schema, the description could be minimal but still fails to convey the purpose fully. 'Invoice-payment lookups' is vague; the tool likely returns lookup data for invoice payments, but this is not confirmed. It is adequate but lacks depth.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is trivially covered. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but 0-parameter tools need minimal description. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Invoice-payment lookups,' which indicates it is for looking up invoice payment data. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_invoice_lookups or specify what exactly is returned. The phrase 'Fails loudly' is irrelevant to purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_invoice_lookups or other lookup tools. The agent receives no context on when this is the appropriate choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools