Retrieve full invoice details, including line items, by invoice ID from the VoxFactura account. Use it to fetch a specific invoice's data for reporting or review.
Détail d'une facture (lignes comprises) par son numéro dans le compte
(le champ id renvoyé par la liste des factures).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | No | ||
| facture_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes line items, which is useful, and 'Détail' implies a read operation, but it says nothing about permissions, the optional `dossier` scope, or what happens with invalid ids.
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 efficient sentence with the key action front-loaded and the id-source clarification in parentheses. No wasted text, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary id parameter and return scope, but omits any explanation of `dossier` and any behavioral detail. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains facture_id (the id from the invoice list), but leaves the optional `dossier` parameter completely unexplained in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters ambiguous.
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 names a specific verb (get the detail) and resource (facture/invoice), and adds scope (lignes comprises – line items included). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `factures` list by stating it works 'par son numéro' using the id returned by that list.
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?
It implies when to use it by telling the agent to obtain the id from the invoice list, effectively routing from `factures` to this tool. However, it gives no explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g. does the invoice need to exist, any account scoping).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.