get_payment
Fetch the payment history of an invoice by providing the document ID.
Instructions
Számla fizetési előzményeinek lekérése
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | A dokumentum ID-ja |
Fetch the payment history of an invoice by providing the document ID.
Számla fizetési előzményeinek lekérése
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | A dokumentum ID-ja |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly more informative about what the tool does.
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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. However, it lacks details about the return format or whether history is chronological, but that is acceptable given the context.
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 the parameter 'document_id' already described. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score is appropriate.
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 states it retrieves payment history for an invoice, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_payment, delete_payment, and update_payment.
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 description implies usage when needing payment history of an invoice but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Szotasz/billingo-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server