buchpilot-mcp

get_voucher

Retrieve a specific voucher by its ID to access detailed voucher information for auditing or verification. Input the voucher ID to get the document from your accounting system.

Instructions

Ruft einen Beleg per ID ab. Gets a voucher by ID.

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": "get_voucher"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Beleg-ID
`backend`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it gets a voucher by ID, with no details on what happens if the ID is invalid, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not confirmed). The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but lacks substance. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but the brevity means it misses important details.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, error handling, or any additional context needed for correct usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50% because the 'backend' parameter lacks a description. The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (only 'id' is documented in schema). With low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a voucher by ID ('Gets a voucher by ID'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_vouchers or get_invoice, which also retrieve similar resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to use alternatives like list_vouchers. The usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

Deploy Server