List authored AR invoices, newest first.
Optional status / doc_type filter by lifecycle + document kind.
Optional period (YYYY-MM) filters by the invoice's issue date (its
month); a malformed value returns 422 {"msg": "period must be YYYY-MM"}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| period | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| doc_type | No | ||
| company_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses ordering (newest first), documented error behavior with 422 and exact message for malformed period, and explains status semantics (paid/overdue derived, not stored). Missing pagination default/max info that schema provides.
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?
Three tight sentences; primary action and ordering front-loaded, then filters, then error behavior. Zero filler.
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?
Covers purpose, filters, ordering, error handling, and key semantics. For a read-only list tool with no output schema, doesn't describe return format or pagination beyond defaults, but annotations absence is mitigated by detailed filter semantics.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for status (editorial lifecycle, paid/overdue derived), doc_type (document kind), period (YYYY-MM format, filters by issue month, error on malformed), going well beyond bare parameter names.
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?
Specific verb+resource (list AR invoices) with scope (authored) and ordering (newest first). This distinguishes it from sibling get_ar_invoice (single) and create_ar_invoice (write).
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?
Implies usage through describing filters, but does not state when to use this vs list_gl_open_items or other list tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.