Wise MCP Server

Download a transfer receipt

get_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Save a paid Wise transfer's PDF receipt to a local file by transfer ID for bookkeeping and proof of payment.

Instructions

Save a transfer's receipt, the PDF Wise issues once it is paid, to a file on this machine. For bookkeeping and proof of payment.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The transfer id.
`save_to`	No	Where to save it. Defaults to ~/Downloads/wise-receipt-<id>.pdf.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context — the receipt only exists once the transfer is paid, and the call writes a file to the local machine — but it omits what happens if that transfer is unpaid or if the target file already exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences with the action and output artifact front-loaded; the trailing use-case fragment is short and relevant. No wasted wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter download tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is produced (a PDF file on disk) and the paid precondition. The remaining gap is failure/overwrite behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the default path pattern. The description adds only that the id refers to a paid transfer and that the output lands on local disk, which is a modest supplement over the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (save a transfer's receipt PDF) and specifies the artifact and destination (a file on this machine), which implicitly separates it from get_transfer's metadata. It stops short of naming the sibling it supersedes, so the differentiation must be inferred.

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?

"For bookkeeping and proof of payment" and "once it is paid" imply the use context and a precondition, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as get_transfer for transfer details.

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