get_invoiceFetch a customer invoice by document number to view line items, net and VAT amounts, balance, due date, references, and booked/sent status.
One customer invoice in full: rows, Net (excl. VAT), VAT, Balance, due date, references, booked/sent state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (field list) in lieu of an output schema, but says nothing about the lookup key, failure modes for an unknown document_number, or scoping (e.g. per financial year).
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 tight sentence with the resource stated first and the returned fields enumerated. Nothing is redundant, though the fragment style leaves no room for the missing usage guidance.
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?
With no output schema, the field enumeration usefully signals what the caller receives, and annotations cover the safety profile. But the required document_number parameter is completely unexplained, which is the main gap for an otherwise simple single-param read tool.
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 schema only declares document_number as a non-empty string. The description never mentions the parameter, its format, or where it comes from (e.g. an invoice list), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Names a specific resource (one customer invoice) and enumerates what it returns (rows, Net, VAT, Balance, due date, references, booked/sent state). It is clearly distinct from list_invoices and get_supplier_invoice by naming 'customer invoice' and 'one'. However, the verb is only implicit in the tool name, and no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_invoices for browsing versus this tool for fetching a single document. The only signal is the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.