get_supplier_invoiceRetrieve a supplier invoice and its full details by invoice ID, optionally scoped to a company, to review or verify bookkeeping records.
One supplier invoice with all its details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | No | Company id or name; may be omitted with one company | |
| invoice_id | 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, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only "with all its details," which is a vague hint at completeness and says nothing about scoping, error behavior when the invoice is not found, or company resolution.
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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight writing.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the required invoice_id semantics and multi-company scoping unaddressed. For a two-parameter fetch tool it should say at minimum what identifier to supply and when company is needed.
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 coverage is 50%: company is documented in the schema, but invoice_id carries no description anywhere. The description does not explain the invoice_id format, its source, or how the optional company parameter affects lookup when multiple companies exist, leaving the gap uncompensated.
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 supplier invoice with all its details" implies a singular fetch of a supplier invoice, which is distinguishable from the plural get_supplier_invoices only by the word "One." It never states the retrieval verb or explicitly contrasts with the list sibling, so an agent must infer the difference from the name alone.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_supplier_invoices, list-type siblings, or approve_supplier_invoice. No prerequisites (e.g., whether an invoice must exist or be uploaded first) are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.