Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

@yawlabs/lemonsqueezy-mcp

by YawLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ls_get_subscription_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific subscription invoice by ID to access its status, total, billing reason, and payment details.

Instructions

Get a specific subscription invoice by ID, including status, total, billing reason, and payment details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subscriptionInvoiceId": "<subscriptionInvoiceId>"
    },
    "name": "ls_get_subscription_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeNoComma-separated related resources to include (e.g. 'store,subscription')
subscriptionInvoiceIdYesThe subscription invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.10

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context on the specific fields returned, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then lists key fields. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately indicates return contents. Missing error handling mention, but acceptable for a basic retrieval tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions output fields but not parameter details.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'specific subscription invoice', and enumerates included fields (status, total, billing reason, payment details). It effectively distinguishes from list and mutation tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies retrieval of a single invoice by ID, which contrasts with list operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like ls_list_subscription_invoices or ls_refund_subscription_invoice.

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