lexware-mcp-server

Get Voucher

lexware_get_voucher

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a bookkeeping voucher by ID from Lexware, with retries on 404 to handle indexing delays and a fallback processing status.

Instructions

Retrieve a bookkeeping voucher by ID from Lexware. The voucherStatus field in the response is normalized to its canonical lowercase form. Known values: unchecked, open, paid, paidoff, voided, transferred, sepadebit. Retries up to 3 times (1 s / 2 s / 4 s) on 404 to absorb the indexing delay after an upload; if the voucher is still missing, returns { voucherId, status: "processing", message } rather than an error. Other failures are reported as errors.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "lexware_get_voucher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Voucher UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnly/idempotent hints, but description goes beyond by disclosing retry logic (3 times on 404), normalized status field, and the processing fallback return object. This is valuable behavioral context not available elsewhere.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds critical information (normalization, retries, error handling). No unnecessary fluff.

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 simple get-by-ID tool, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: retrieval, normalization, retry policy, and fallback response. Given no output schema, it adequately explains what the agent can expect.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' completely with format and description. Description adds no additional semantics beyond what schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does full documentation.

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?

Clearly states 'Retrieve a bookkeeping voucher by ID' with specific resource and action. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying voucher rather than other document types, and adds detail about status normalization.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implies usage for fetching a single voucher by ID, and explains behavior when voucher may be absent (retries, processing fallback). Does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_vouchers, but context is clear enough.

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

Deploy Server