List invoices for your organization, optionally filtered by customer and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Optional: filter by invoice status (e.g. Draft, Issued, Paid, Void). | |
| page_size | No | Number of results per page (default 20, max 100). | |
| customer_id | No | Optional: filter by customer ID. | |
| page_number | No | Page number, 1-based (default 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks details on pagination behavior, default ordering, or any constraints. Does not disclose what happens when no results or error cases.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no redundant information. Efficient and to the point.
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?
Sufficient for a simple list operation but missing explicit mention of pagination mechanism (though implicit in parameters). No output schema to describe return values, so description should at least hint at result shape.
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?
Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description merely restates the optional filter parameters without adding nuance beyond the 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?
Clearly states action 'List invoices' and the scope 'for your organization' with optional filters. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_invoice or issue_invoice.
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?
Implied usage through optional filters, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_invoice or when not to use it.
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.