Unofficial Lexware Office MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_payments

Read-only

Retrieve a voucher's payment status, outstanding amount, currency, and recorded payments to determine whether it is paid or still open.

Instructions

Show whether a voucher has been paid, and what is still open.

Returns the payment status, the amount still outstanding, the currency and the individual payments recorded against it. Costs one API call.

Takes the id of the voucher, not of a payment. An openAmount of 0 is the answer to "is it settled" and is reported rather than omitted.

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": {
      "voucher_id": "<voucher_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`voucher_id`	Yes	The voucher's Lexware id, as returned by search_vouchers. Not the voucher number a human reads off the document.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.3Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuine context beyond that: cost (one API call), the exact shape of what comes back (status, outstanding amount, currency, individual payments), and the non-omission behavior for openAmount=0. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. unknown voucher id) or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each with a distinct job: what it returns, what it costs, and which id to pass. The output description is front-loaded, the caveat follows, and there is no redundant restatement of the schema text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so explicitly (status, open amount, currency, individual payments) plus the settled-state semantics of openAmount=0. For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already warns against the human-readable voucher number. The description adds a distinct clarification the schema does not make — that the id is the voucher's, not a payment's — which directly prevents a plausible wrong-argument error, going beyond the schema baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: shows payment status and open amount for a voucher, plus the individual payments recorded against it. The note that it takes the voucher id (not a payment id) pre-empts the most likely confusion and separates it from any payment-level concept, so an agent can identify the right tool without opening the schema.

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?

"Show whether a voucher has been paid, and what is still open" and "An `openAmount` of 0 is the answer to 'is it settled'" give a concrete invocation context, including the settled-case question. No explicit alternative or when-not guidance is offered, but no sibling tool in the list covers payment status, so the risk of misselection is low.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.