DoubleData MCP

Get invoice

get_invoice

Read-only

Retrieve an invoice by ID to access totals, status, dates, and a hosted invoice link.

Instructions

Return one invoice by ID with totals, status, dates and hosted invoice link.

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the returned fields, which matters because no output schema exists; it stops short of error/auth behavior, but for a read-only lookup that gap 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the identifier, and the return contents. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the input is an invoice ID and the result contains totals, status, dates and a hosted link. Only error/not-found semantics are absent.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It confirms the ID selects a single invoice, but the schema's regex pattern already conveys the 'in_...' format, and the description adds no further semantics about lookup behavior or not-found handling.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return one invoice by ID') and enumerates the payload ('totals, status, dates and hosted invoice link'). That cleanly separates it from list_invoices and download_invoice without naming them, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by ID' signals a single-record lookup rather than a listing or file download. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over download_invoice or list_invoices, and no mention of what happens if the ID is unknown.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.