Skip to main content
Glama

myinvois_template_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List saved line-item presets, newest first. Each line_items_json is generate-ready: pass its items as line_items to myinvois_invoice_generate. An empty list means none are saved yet: call myinvois_template_create.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "myinvois_template_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size 1-200. Omit BOTH limit and cursor for the legacy bare-array first page of 200; pass either to get { items, next_cursor, limit } instead.
cursorNoOpaque page cursor — pass a previous response's next_cursor verbatim. null next_cursor means no further pages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on value: ordering ('newest first') and the guarantee that each line_items_json is already generate-ready as line_items. It doesn't discuss pagination, but the schema's cursor/limit descriptions cover that.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences, each doing distinct work – purpose/order, downstream payload contract, and the empty-state branch. No filler.

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 read-only 2-param list tool with fully documented schema and annotations, this covers what the tool returns conceptually (presets usable directly as generate input) and the empty case. Only fine-grained paging behavior relies solely on the schema, which is acceptable.

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 the limit/cursor descriptions already explain the dual response shape, so the description needn't repeat it; it adds nothing about the parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List saved line-item presets') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), which cleanly distinguishes it from myinvois_template_read/create/update siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: an empty list means nothing is saved, so call myinvois_template_create, and the returned items are meant to be fed into myinvois_invoice_generate. It doesn't address when to prefer template_read or template_update, but the primary downstream workflow is spelled out.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources