Retrieves an invoice by ID, returning its number, line items, total, and payment status (notPaid, paid, partiallyPaid, rejected, overdue) to verify billing details and payment state.
Счёт по id: номер, позиции, сумма и статус оплаты (notPaid, paid, partiallyPaid, rejected, overdue). total — null, если Эльба не вернула сумму хотя бы одной позиции. Счёт из журнала обновляется в журнале.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose some real behavior: the payment-status enum values and the rule that total is null when Elba failed to return the sum for at least one line item. It does not state read-only nature, permissions, or error behavior, and the closing note about journal updates is cryptic.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields; little waste. The final sentence about journal updates is terse and hard to parse, slightly weakening an otherwise tight structure.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields and status values, standing in for the missing output schema. It falls short on the parameter's expected format and on any indication of behavior when the id is invalid or not found.
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 single bill_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate — it only implies 'по id' without stating the id format, where to obtain it, or how it relates to other tools. That leaves the one required parameter under-explained.
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 'Счёт по id' (bill by id) and enumerates the returned fields — number, line items, total, payment status — so the agent knows this is a read-by-identifier tool. It is distinguishable from elba_create_bill and elba_track_bill by the 'by id' framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like elba_track_bill, elba_unpaid, or elba_repeat_bill. The 'по id' phrasing implies a lookup when an id is known, but that is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.