Skip to main content
Glama
davidkotler

icount-mcp

by davidkotler
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Get document

icount_get_document
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve complete details of any iCount document by type and number, with options to include line items, payment breakdown, and PDF link.

Instructions

Fetch full details of a single existing document by type and number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docnumYesThe document number as shown in iCount
doctypeYes
getItemsNoInclude line items (default true)
getPdfLinkNoInclude a direct PDF link (default false)
getPaymentsNoInclude payment breakdown (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / docnum / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / docnum / description
      Added value: +"The document number as shown in iCount"
    • removedInput schema / properties / docnum / type
      Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "number"
-]
  2. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds only that the document must already exist, without describing response shape, error behavior, or the effect of the optional flags. This is adequate but not rich contextual disclosure.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and identifier without extraneous phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only fetch by known identifiers, the description is nearly sufficient: it states scope and identity, while optional parameters are explained in the schema. It falls slightly short because there is no output schema and the description only vaguely promises 'full details' without hinting at the response or failure behavior.

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 high (80%), and the schema already documents doctype, docnum, getItems, getPdfLink, and getPayments with their defaults. The description reinforces that doctype/docnum identify the document but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('a single existing document'), and the identifying criteria ('by type and number'). It distinguishes this from siblings like search_documents (search vs exact fetch) and get_document_url (URL only vs full details).

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 right context: use when you already know the doctype and docnum and want the full object, rather than when searching or listing. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implicit.

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