Fetch invoice details and line items using an invoice ID. Include user or item relations for complete billing context.
Get invoice details and line items by invoice ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include | No | Relations (user, items) | |
| invoice_id | Yes | Invoice ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what happens when the ID does not exist, or that permissions/auth are required; it also fails to explain that the 'include' relation expansion affects what is returned.
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 padding; the key lookup key is stated up front. It is efficient, though it could have used one or two more clauses for guidance without bloat.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, what is present is workable, but with zero annotations the description should at least mark it as a non-mutating lookup and note the include-Relations behavior. It stops just short of complete.
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 100% with only two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates 'by invoice ID' and implies line items, adding nothing about the 'include' relation syntax beyond the schema's own 'Relations (user, items)' note.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (get invoice) plus the payload (details and line items) and the lookup key (invoice ID). This clearly separates it from paymenter_list_invoices and the create/update/delete_invoice siblings, though it never names them.
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?
Usage is only implied: the 'by invoice ID' phrasing signals this is the single-record fetch versus paymenter_list_invoices, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Adequate minimum, nothing more.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.