get_invoice
Retrieve a specific invoice from Planhat by providing its ID.
Instructions
Get a Planhat invoice by ID.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes |
Retrieve a specific invoice from Planhat by providing its ID.
Get a Planhat invoice by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the purpose, meeting the baseline for transparency.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 6 words, fully front-loaded with no extraneous information.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description does not clarify expected return values or behavior when the ID is not found, especially since no output schema is provided.
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?
The description mentions 'by ID', adding minimal context to the invoice_id parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, example) would be needed to compensate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Planhat invoice' with qualifier 'by ID', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like list_invoices or create_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?
While the description implies usage when a specific invoice ID is known, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_invoices or other get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/da-troll/planhat-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server