Retrieve complete invoice details by ID, including independent detail tables, for read-only accounting data access.
Read an invoice detail dialog by a returned ID; preserves independent detail tables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invoice_id | Yes | Opaque ID from a previously returned record/link |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| xml | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| tables | Yes | ||
| company_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond those annotations: 'preserves independent detail tables.' No contradiction with annotations is present.
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 compact sentence front-loads the operation and then adds the key behavioral qualifier. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter read operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the definition gives an agent what it needs to call the tool correctly. The phrase 'preserves independent detail tables' is slightly underspecified, but the output schema and annotation profile fill the remaining context.
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 schema fully documents the single parameter as an opaque ID from a previously returned record/link, and description coverage is 100%. The description's 'returned ID' phrase reinforces the schema but does not add new format, source, or lifecycle details.
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 operation ('Read an invoice detail dialog') on a clearly identified resource, and adds a distinguishing behavioral note about preserving independent detail tables. This separates it from sibling get_* and list_* tools without requiring schema inspection.
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?
The description explicitly conditions use on 'a returned ID', which is a useful prerequisite. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_invoices or sibling get_* tools, and gives no exclusions or alternative tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.