Skip to main content
Glama

sales_receivables

Read-only

Who owes you, by client: each client's unpaid balance aged by days past its due date — current (not yet due), 1-30, 31-60, 61-90 and over 90 days — counted in the business's own days (the sales_settings time zone), so an invoice due today is still current. Only issued invoices with a balance left count: drafts, cancelled, paid, written-off and fully credited invoices never do. Money is integer CENTS in each invoice's own currency: one row per client per currency, and totals has one row per currency, never converted or added across currencies; read the figures as given, never multiply or divide them yourself. Clients come oldest past-due first. Optional client_id ages one client; an id that is not one of your clients is refused NOT_FOUND (find it with invoice_client_search or invoice_client_list). A limit outside 1-200 is refused VALIDATION_ERROR (leave it out for 50; totals always cover every client). NEXT: invoice_list with state 'overdue' lists the past-due invoices themselves.

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": "sales_receivables"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMost client rows to return, 1-200 (default 50). totals always cover every client; truncated says whether rows were left out.
client_idNoOne client's id, from invoice_client_search or invoice_client_list. Leave out to age every client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond readOnlyHint=true: discloses the time-zone basis for aging ('the business's own days ... so an invoice due today is still current'), that money is integer cents never to be scaled, per-currency row granularity without conversion or cross-currency summation, the 'truncated' flag semantics, and specific error codes for bad client_id and out-of-range limit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense but front-loaded: the core semantics come first, then units/currency rules, then ordering, then per-parameter edge cases, then a NEXT pointer. Almost every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph could be broken into shorter units for faster scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden — and it does: one row per client per currency, totals per currency, a truncated flag, and oldest-past-due-first ordering. Error behavior, defaults, and follow-up tools are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds enforcement detail beyond the schema — out-of-range limit is refused VALIDATION_ERROR with a 50 default, and totals always cover every client even when rows are truncated. For client_id it adds the NOT_FOUND refusal behavior and provenance of the id, which the schema only hints at.

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?

Opens with a precise framing of the resource ('who owes you, by client') and immediately specifies the aging buckets (current, 1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 90+) that define the output. It is unmistakably an aged receivables report rather than an invoice list, and it explicitly routes the invoice-level view to invoice_list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

States the exact inclusion rule (only issued invoices with a balance; drafts, cancelled, paid, written-off, fully credited excluded), the ordering, when to supply client_id versus omit it, and names the next tool (invoice_list with state 'overdue'). It also names the lookup tools (invoice_client_search / invoice_client_list) for obtaining an id.

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