payping_get_invoiceRetrieve a PayPing invoice by code to view its items, customer, status, payment code, and the public payment URL.
One invoice by code with its items, customer, status and payment code, plus url, the public page where
the customer pays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / code / titleRemoved value: -"Code"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"payping_get_invoiceArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "payping_get_invoiceDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the response contents (items, customer, status, payment code) and clarifying what `url` means, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 waste: the core action leads and the returned fields follow. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 read-only single-invoice getter with annotations covering safety and the description covering the returned fields, an agent has enough to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of any hint at error behavior for a missing/invalid code.
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 single `code` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, but the description anchors it ('by code'), and the parameter is self-evident for a get-by-identifier tool. More detail on code format would help, but the semantics are adequately conveyed.
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?
'One invoice by code' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies a single-record fetch rather than a list. It sits opposite list_invoices and create/send_invoice, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 only implied: 'by code' suggests you call this when you already hold an invoice code, but the description never states when to prefer it over list_invoices or what happens if the code is unknown. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.