codat_get_invoiceFetch a single AR invoice by id (full object incl. lineItems, paymentAllocations). Codat API: GET /companies/{companyId}/data/invoices/{invoiceId}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| companyId | Yes | The Codat companyId (UUID). | |
| invoiceId | Yes | The invoice id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it returns full object with lineItems and paymentAllocations, and provides the API endpoint. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with no fluff: first describes action and return, second gives API endpoint. Efficient and front-loaded.
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 simple fetch with two parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, return content, and API context. No gaps.
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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (companyId as UUID, invoiceId as invoice id). Description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond schema.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'single AR invoice by id', with explicit inclusion of lineItems and paymentAllocations. Clearly distinguishes from list tools like codat_list_invoices.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but context of siblings implies it's for fetching a known invoice by ID rather than listing or searching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action (e.g., companies, connections, invoices, financial statements). Even similar-looking tools like the three financial statements are clearly differentiated by their names and descriptions. No overlapping purposes.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'codat_verb_noun' (e.g., codat_create_company, codat_list_invoices, codat_get_balance_sheet). No mixing of styles or irregular naming.
28 tools cover the main read and refresh operations across Codat's domain (companies, connections, accounting data, integrations). The count feels well-scoped for a data aggregation platform, not excessive.
The tool set focuses heavily on reading and listing data, with only create for companies/connections and refresh triggers. Missing update/delete for many entities (e.g., invoices, bills). An escape hatch exists but is GET-only. Notable gaps for write workflows.