Download a single Israel Electric invoice as a base64 PDF using its invoice number, with optional business partner and contract IDs.
Download one invoice as a PDF (base64).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bpNumber | No | Business partner number; defaults to the signed-in customer's. | |
| contractId | No | Contract number; defaults to the first contract. | |
| invoiceNumber | Yes | documentID from list_invoices. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload form (PDF, base64-encoded), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. It says nothing about auth requirements, error/failure behavior, or rate limits.
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. Efficient, though for a tool with no annotations and no output schema a touch more detail would have earned its place.
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?
The description covers the key return-format detail (base64 PDF) that the absent output schema would otherwise leave unknown. It is still thin on outcome/error behavior and on how the required invoiceNumber should be obtained, which matters given the sibling list tool.
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 100%, so all three parameters (including defaults for bpNumber and contractId, and the list_invoices provenance of invoiceNumber) are already documented. The description adds only the singular/invoice-scoping nuance, so baseline 3 applies.
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+resource+artifact: download one invoice as a PDF. Singular scope ('one invoice') is clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_invoices (which the schema references but the prose does not), so no sibling differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the natural alternative (list_invoices, which produces the invoiceNumber this tool needs). The agent must infer that it needs an already-known invoice identifier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.