get_invoiceRetrieve a single invoice by ID with its line items, amounts, and payment status. Use it to check billing details or confirm payment.
Returns one invoice with its items, amounts and payment status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description enumerates return contents (items, amounts, payment status), but an output schema exists that already conveys this, so the added behavioral value is modest.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it spends words restating return contents that the output schema already exposes.
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 an output schema and annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description is adequate for a simple lookup. It omits any mention of error behavior (e.g. nonexistent id) and leaves the id parameter entirely unexplained.
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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not — it never states that id identifies the invoice to fetch or what form it takes. The reference to 'one invoice' hints at lookup but adds no real semantic detail.
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?
Specific verb (get) plus resource (invoice), and the phrase 'one invoice' distinguishes it from the list_invoices sibling. It does not, however, differentiate itself from download_invoice, which also operates on a single invoice.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With siblings like list_invoices, create_invoice, update_invoice and download_invoice in the set, the agent gets no help deciding between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.