Skip to main content
Glama
aweher

invoiceninja-mcp

by aweher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

invoiceninja_get_quote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single Invoice Ninja quote by hashed ID with full details, including line items, in Markdown or JSON.

Instructions

Get one quote by its hashed id, with all details (line items included).

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful return-scope context ('all details, line items included') but does not disclose error behavior, required permissions, or pagination.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It immediately states the action, the identifying argument, and the return scope.

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?

For a simple read-by-id tool with fully described parameters and strong safety annotations, the description is adequate and states what is returned. Minor gaps remain: no mention of response format handling or how to find the id, but those are covered by the schema.

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%: all four parameters, including id, fields, include, and response_format, are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond repeating that id is hashed, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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 'Get' and resource 'one quote', and explicitly scopes it as a single-record retrieval with 'all details (line items included)'. This distinguishes it from the list_quotes sibling by implying one vs. many, though it never names that sibling.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and does not mention list_quotes or invoiceninja_search as alternatives for locating a quote. The only implicit prerequisite is that the caller already has a hashed id, which is not framed as usage guidance.

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