Skip to main content
Glama
aweher

invoiceninja-mcp

by aweher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

invoiceninja_get_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single payment's full details from Invoice Ninja using its hashed ID. Retrieve amount, client, date, and related records for reconciliation or review.

Instructions

Get one payment by its hashed id, with all details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesHashed record id, e.g. 'Opnel5aKBz'
fieldsNoJSON format only: return just these top-level fields (id is always included), e.g. ['number', 'client_name', 'balance', 'due_date']
includeNoExtra relations to embed, comma separated (e.g. 'payments,activities')
response_formatNo'markdown' (default) for a readable summary, 'json' for complete machine-readable data (empty fields removed)markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'with all details,' which is vague and does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or how fields/include/response_format affect the returned data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple get-by-id tool, though 'with all details' is slightly vague filler that does not add precision.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain parameters or read-only behavior. However, for an agent choosing among many get/list siblings, it lacks usage routing and does not clarify return-format implications, leaving it minimally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all four parameters are well documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter detail beyond restating that the id is hashed, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one payment') and scope ('by its hashed id'), which distinguishes it from list_payments by singularity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling get_* tools or mention list_payments as the multi-record alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_payments for retrieving multiple payments. The implied usage is retrievable only from the tool name and description's id requirement.

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