Get Purchase Invoice
get_purchase_invoiceRetrieve a specific purchase invoice by its unique ID from the e-arveldaja financial system.
Instructions
Get a purchase invoice by ID
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
get_purchase_invoiceRetrieve a specific purchase invoice by its unique ID from the e-arveldaja financial system.
Get a purchase invoice by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what the response contains).
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more specific about the return value.
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 read operation with one parameter and robust annotations, the description is nearly complete but lacks mention of the response format or any other expectations.
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 input schema descriptions are complete (100% coverage), and the tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description explicitly states the tool retrieves ('get') a purchase invoice by its ID, which clearly distinguishes it from list/create/update/delete siblings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_purchase_invoices for listing, confirm_purchase_invoice for confirmation).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iseppo/e-arveldaja-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server