Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
datagate-mcp

datagate-mcp

by hyamie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_invoice_details

Retrieve complete invoice details including line-item transactions. Returns header and transaction array with product, quantity, commission, tax, and total.

Instructions

Get full invoice details with line-item transactions.

Returns the invoice header plus transactions array. Each transaction has productCode, productLabel, quantity, amount (commission base), tax, and total.

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_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
invoice_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description explains the return structure (invoice header and transactions array with fields) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only partially meets it.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then listing return fields. No unnecessary information is present, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the return structure adequately for a simple get operation but lacks details on error scenarios, pagination (if any), and guarantees about the operation. Given the complexity (single param, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'invoice_id'. The description does not add any meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or source. The tool's purpose implies the parameter is an identifier, but no extra guidance is given.

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 the tool retrieves full invoice details including line-item transactions, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'search_invoices' by focusing on a single invoice with line items.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an invoice ID, or contrast with sibling tools like 'search_invoices' or 'list_agreements'.

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