Skip to main content
Glama
iseppo

e-arveldaja MCP Server

by iseppo

Get Sale Invoice

get_sale_invoice
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a sales invoice by its ID, including associated items and deliveries, to view or verify invoice details.

Instructions

Get a sales invoice by ID (includes items, deliveries)

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesObject ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.29.2
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. First observedv0.18.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful return context ('includes items, deliveries') that annotations do not convey, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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 that states the operation, the key, and the return contents with zero wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is largely sufficient and adds return-content hints. It stops short of noting behavior for a missing/invalid ID, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description's 'by ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 ('Get'), resource ('sales invoice'), and lookup key ('by ID'), and adds that the response includes items and deliveries. This distinguishes it from list_sale_invoices and the document/XML siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

The phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for when an identifier is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of list_sale_invoices, and no prerequisites described.

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