Fetch a bill by ID to get its total and status. Useful for accounts payable tasks needing specific bill details.
Fetch one bill by id, with its total and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bill_id | Yes | Bill id, e.g. B-1001 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only lookup and it does disclose the returned fields (total, status), which is useful, but it says nothing about lookup failure behavior for an unknown id, permissions, or whether the result is cached/live.
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 the operation front-loaded and zero filler; every clause (verb, lookup key, return fields) earns 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?
For a one-required-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the key, and the returned fields, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It loses a point only for not clarifying the single-id versus search distinction among siblings.
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% and the schema already supplies an example ('B-1001'), so the parameter is fully documented in structured data. The phrase 'by id' adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one bill by id') and adds the returned shape ('total and status'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_bills, which is the obvious adjacent retrieval tool.
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 context is given. With siblings like search_bills and get_pending_releases, the description should say this is for a single known bill id versus list/search retrieval, but it offers no routing guidance or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.