payping_get_invoiceRetrieve a specific invoice by its code to view 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 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only a content summary of the response and the meaning of `url` as the customer-facing payment page, which is modest added value for a read tool.
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 filler. The tail listing return fields is slightly redundant given the output schema exists, but the description remains tight and readable.
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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose and the notable `url` field adequately. The only real gap is routing guidance versus payping_list_invoices and the origin/format of the code value.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single `code` parameter, so the description must compensate. It does state the lookup is 'by code', identifying the parameter as an invoice code, but adds no format, source, or example of where that code comes from.
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 and resource: fetch 'one invoice by code', and enumerates what the record contains (items, customer, status, payment code, url). The singular 'one invoice' implicitly separates it from payping_list_invoices, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'by code' implies a single-record lookup, but the agent is left to infer that payping_list_invoices is the alternative for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.