get_invoiceRetrieve a full Atera invoice by invoice number, including line items, issuer, and recipient details.
Full invoice with line items, issuer and recipient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoiceNumber | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned content (line items, issuer, recipient), though it omits error behavior for a missing invoice and any auth requirements.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and the returned payload. No filler, though it is terse to the point of leaving useful context unsaid.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description reasonably carries the return-shape burden by naming the fields. However, for a lookup tool it should at least identify the input key (invoice number) and note behavior on a missing invoice.
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 0% and the single required parameter invoiceNumber is never mentioned in the description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. The parameter name is self-descriptive, which keeps this from being a 1.
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 the verb (get) and resource (invoice) plus the payload content — line items, issuer, recipient. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_invoices, but the singular resource and 'full invoice' phrasing implies a single-record fetch.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite context, and no mention of the obvious sibling list_invoices as an alternative for browsing many invoices. The agent must infer the retrieval-by-ID use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.