freeagent-mcp-server

freeagent_get_invoice

Read-only

Fetch a single FreeAgent invoice by ID to view its details and support accounting workflows.

Instructions

Get a single invoice from FreeAgent 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": "freeagent_get_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	The invoice ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.3.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description needs only add context. It confirms the single-record retrieval but says nothing about what happens if the ID doesn't exist (error behavior), whether deleted/cancelled invoices are still returned, or pagination/attachment handling.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing the essential scope.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and full schema coverage, the description is adequate to call it correctly. It is not complete on error/not-found behavior or whether the response includes line items, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required invoice_id that already carries a pattern constraint, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the 'by ID' framing, which reinforces that this is a lookup key rather than a filter; baseline credit applies for a 0-1 param tool with full schema coverage.

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?

"Get a single invoice from FreeAgent by ID" names a specific verb (get), resource (invoice), and scope (single, by ID), which distinguishes it from freeagent_list_invoices. It doesn't differentiate itself from the other invoice siblings (update/delete/mark), though the read verb implies that.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the verb and by the 'by ID' qualifier, so an agent can infer this is for retrieving a known invoice rather than enumerating. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as freeagent_list_invoices for discovery.

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

Deploy Server