ohneben's Wafeq MCP

wafeq_debit_notes_line_items_retrieve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific line item from a debit note by supplying its ID and the parent debit note ID. Use this to view details for reconciliation or audit.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Debit Note Line Items · GET /debit-notes/{debit_note_id}/line-items/{id}/

Retrieve debit note line item

Endpoint for retrieving a single debit note line item.

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": {
      "debit_note_id": "<debit_note_id>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "wafeq_debit_notes_line_items_retrieve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`debit_note_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's READ-ONLY and GET markers align with these but add no new behavioral context such as error cases, authentication needs, or response shape.

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 short and front-loaded with the safety badge and endpoint path. But 'Retrieve debit note line item' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a single debit note line item' are redundant, and the READ-ONLY badge repeats annotation data.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only retrieval with two string parameters, the description plus annotations cover the essential selection and invocation needs. The lack of an output schema is not critical because the purpose makes the return value evident.

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?

The schema only exposes two string IDs with no descriptions, while the path template /debit-notes/{debit_note_id}/line-items/{id}/ clarifies the hierarchy and role of each parameter. However, the description does not explain how to obtain these IDs or what formats they expect.

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?

The description clearly states 'Retrieve debit note line item' with an explicit GET path, so the verb and resource are unambiguous. The word 'single' distinguishes it from list, create, update, and destroy siblings for the same resource.

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?

The description positions this as the endpoint for retrieving one debit note line item, giving clear selection context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the 'single' qualifier implies it is not for listing or modifying.

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

Deploy Server