intakeq-mcp

get_invoice

Retrieve a specific IntakeQ invoice by its ID to view details, status, and client information.

Instructions

Get a single invoice 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": {
      "invoice_id": "<invoice_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	The IntakeQ invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It communicates that this is a read operation ('Get') with no side effects, but does not disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or authentication requirements. Minimal but not misleading.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action and scope immediately.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit return type or error handling, but the operation is straightforward and the schema covers the parameter. The sibling list_invoices provides differentiation.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description ('The IntakeQ invoice ID') is sufficient. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single invoice'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_invoices' tool. It precisely states the scope (single by ID), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage when a specific invoice ID is known, distinguishing it from listing tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use list_invoices to find IDs) or state when not to use this tool.

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