List invoices for a project
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"projectId": "<projectId>"
},
"name": "listInvoices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not confirm read-only semantics, state whether results are paginated, describe ordering, or explain what happens with an invalid or inaccessible projectId.
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?
A single front-loaded phrase with zero redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
The tool is simple (one required param, no nested objects), but with no output schema the agent has no idea what an invoice record contains or how many/few are returned. Given zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description should say more than it does.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'projectId' is undocumented there; the phrase 'for a project' maps it to the project selector but adds no format, type, or source details. It compensates minimally for the coverage gap.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List invoices') plus a scope ('for a project'), which is enough to identify the operation. There are no overlapping sibling tools (no other invoice-related names), so explicit differentiation isn't required, though it also isn't provided.
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?
Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the read path for a project's invoices. There is no statement about when to use it versus other tools, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required access to the project), and no guidance on result scope or pagination.
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.