Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

zoho-bookkeeper-mcp

by bu5hm4nn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_invoice_attachment

Read-only

Use an invoice ID to retrieve details about files attached to the invoice.

Instructions

Get attachment information for an invoice. Returns details about any files attached to the invoice.

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": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_invoice_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organization_idNoZoho org ID (uses ZOHO_ORGANIZATION_ID env var if not provided)
invoice_idYesInvoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description mentions it 'returns details about any files attached', but does not elaborate on what those details are. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating the return type.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and what it returns. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the key action.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., file names, URLs, metadata). This incompleteness leaves the agent guessing about the response structure, which is critical for a 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 descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of invoice_id or organization_id defaults.

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 'Get attachment information for an invoice' which identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_invoice_attachment and delete_invoice_attachment by focusing on retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for retrieving attachment details but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The context of being a read-only tool is minimally suggested.

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