get_sale_invoice_delivery_optionsRetrieve available delivery methods for a sales invoice, such as e-invoice or email, so you can send it through the correct channel.
Get available delivery methods for a sales invoice (e-invoice or email)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Object ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.29.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev0.18.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the options are e-invoice or email, but says nothing about whether options depend on invoice state (e.g. confirmed vs draft) or client configuration.
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?
One short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the parenthetical detail at the end; nothing is wasted. It is arguably a touch terse for a tool whose output shape is undocumented, but it is structurally sound.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it only partially covers this by naming the two delivery channels. It omits any mention of what else the options object may include or how the result connects to send_sale_invoice.
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?
There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Object ID"), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no clarification about whether the id is the sale invoice id specifically, which is a small missed opportunity in a large sibling set where several entities have ids.
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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (available delivery methods for a sales invoice), so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as send_sale_invoice or get_sale_invoice_document, which would be the main sources of confusion.
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 when-to-use guidance is offered. There is no statement that this should be called before send_sale_invoice to pick a delivery method, nor any exclusion about when it is unnecessary, so the agent must infer the role from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.