get_sale_invoice_documentDownload a sales invoice PDF as base64 using its object ID to retrieve invoice documents for accounting records or further processing.
Download sales invoice PDF (base64)
| 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 one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the payload is returned as base64 rather than a URL or file path. It says nothing about size limits or whether the invoice must be confirmed first.
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?
A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that a little more routing detail could have been added without harm.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully discloses the base64 return format — the key thing an agent needs to know. For a one-parameter, fully-annotated read tool this is nearly complete; only the ambiguity in 'Object ID' and any precondition on invoice state are unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The single parameter is described only as 'Object ID', and the description does not clarify that it is the sale invoice ID, which is a missed opportunity given the many other object types in this server.
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 and resource ('Download sales invoice PDF'), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the PDF/XML siblings by naming the PDF format, but never explicitly contrasts with get_sale_invoice_xml or get_sale_invoice.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_sale_invoice_xml or get_document. The agent must infer everything 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.