Retrieves a single invoice by UUID, including line items, payments, contact details, and company information for review or reconciliation.
Get a single invoice with line items, payments, contact, and company details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Invoice UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' does convey read-only semantics, and it lists the data returned (line items, payments, contact, company). It says nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown/invalid UUID, or whether related entities are expanded vs. referenced by ID.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed immediately by the payload summary. Nothing is wasted.
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?
For a simple single-record read with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (line items, payments, contact, company). It would be complete if it also indicated that the id comes from conduyt_list_invoices and what happens when the invoice isn't found.
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?
A single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Invoice UUID'), so the schema does the work. The description adds only the notion that the ID resolves to one invoice; no format, sourcing (list_invoices output), or lookup-by-other-identifier guidance.
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 ('Get') and resource ('a single invoice'), and 'single' implicitly separates it from conduyt_list_invoices. However, it never names that sibling or any alternative, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit contrast.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch one invoice by UUID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over conduyt_list_invoices or conduyt_search, and no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existence of the invoice) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.