Fusion Holds & Funds Desk MCP

Get invoice

get_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Oracle Fusion Payables invoice details: header, amounts, status, matched POs, and lines. Establish invoice facts before finding why it's stuck.

Instructions

Retrieve a single Oracle Fusion Payables invoice: header, amounts, validation/approval/payment status, matched purchase orders, and lines. Identify the invoice by invoiceId, or by invoiceNumber plus supplierName/supplierNumber/businessUnit when the number alone is ambiguous. Use this first to establish the facts of an invoice, then call get_invoice_holds, get_accounting_period_status, or get_budgetary_control_impacts for the reason it is stuck.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`invoiceId`	No	Fusion InvoiceId. The most precise identifier; use it when you have it.
`businessUnit`	No	Business unit that owns the invoice.
`includeHolds`	No	Also fetch active holds so the summary lists hold codes. Defaults to false; use get_invoice_holds for full hold guidance.
`includeLines`	No	Include invoice lines in the result. Defaults to true.
`supplierName`	No	Supplier name, used to disambiguate an invoice number.
`invoiceNumber`	No	Supplier invoice number. Unique only within a supplier and business unit.
`supplierNumber`	No	Supplier number, used to disambiguate an invoice number.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`meta`	Yes
`invoice`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`nextSteps`	Yes
`disclaimers`	Yes
`holdSnapshot`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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 real behavioral context beyond that: the ambiguity of invoiceNumber across supplier/business unit, the breadth of returned data, and the intended first-step role in a diagnostic sequence. It stops short of noting pagination or permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the retrieval scope plus identification strategy are front-loaded before the downstream-tool routing. Every clause carries actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only lookup with full schema coverage and an output schema covering return structure, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it fetches, how to select the record, and where to go next. Nothing material is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by spelling out the combination rule (invoiceNumber requires supplierName/supplierNumber/businessUnit) rather than leaving the agent to assemble the individual field hints. That said, it does not explain includeHolds/includeLines defaults, which live only in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Retrieve a single Oracle Fusion Payables invoice") and enumerates exactly what comes back: header, amounts, validation/approval/payment status, matched POs, and lines. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_invoice_holds, which only surfaces hold detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states how to identify the invoice (invoiceId, or invoiceNumber plus supplierName/supplierNumber/businessUnit when the number is ambiguous) and names the exact sequencing: use this first to establish facts, then call get_invoice_holds, get_accounting_period_status, or get_budgetary_control_impacts for the root cause. All three siblings are routed to by name and purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server