billingo_get_document_paymentsRetrieves the payments recorded against a specific invoice or document by its ID, so you can review payment history and verify amounts applied to that document.
Returns the payments recorded against a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "payments": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "conversion_rate": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "date": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "payment_method": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "price": {
+ "type": [
+ "number",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "voucher_number": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "payments"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description is consistent with them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no pagination, empty-result behavior, or scope details.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It states the operation and return subject immediately.
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?
The tool is simple: one required id parameter, annotations present, and an output schema exists. The description tells the agent what the call returns, which is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could mention empty or paginated results.
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?
The schema has 100% description coverage and only one parameter, 'id', already documented as 'Document id.' The description adds no additional meaning or format constraints beyond the schema baseline.
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: returns payments recorded against a document. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_document by focusing on the payments subresource, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_document or get_document_reminders.
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?
Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose instead. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'payments recorded against a document.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.