List invoices (facturas) of an organization with total, balance (saldo), status, SII status, linked-sales count and the amount already applied via payment links (with a derived payment status: pendiente/abonada/pagada). Filter by client or status (pendiente/pagada/cancelada). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| apiKey | No | ||
| estado | No | ||
| orgSlug | Yes | ||
| clientId | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds 'Read-only' and explains the derived payment status field. It also mentions the filterable fields and invoice-specific statuses. However, it does not detail pagination or authentication behavior, but for a list tool with no destructive operations, this is adequate.
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?
The description is concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is a lengthy list of fields. It's front-loaded and contains no filler, though it could be more structured.
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?
Without output schema or annotations, the description should enumerate return fields and default behavior. It lists many return fields, but doesn't clarify filtering defaults, pagination, or how the derived status is computed. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is a clear gap.
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 explain parameters. It only references clientId and estado (with enum values) but ignores limit, apiKey, and orgSlug. The returned fields are described, not parameter semantics. This leaves three parameters unexplained.
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 clearly states the tool lists invoices with specific fields (total, balance, SII status, linked-sales count, payment status), using a specific verb. It distinguishes from siblings by naming invoice-specific attributes not covered by other finance_list_* tools.
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?
It implies usage by stating filterable by client or status and read-only, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs finance_list_ventas, finance_list_cobros, etc. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
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.
Multiple parallel booking creation flows (booking_create, scheduling_book, public_booking_create) and session state transition tools (booking_update_status, lifecycle_transition) create ambiguity. While descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool for a given task, especially with 111 tools to choose from.
Most tools follow a consistent domain_action pattern (e.g., client_create, service_update, comms_list_campaigns). Minor deviations include Spanish/English mixing (cierre_*, report_deuda_real) and a few noun-only names like org_summary, but the overall structure is predictable.
With 111 tools, the server is massively over-scoped for an MCP surface. Even for a broad service business domain, this exceeds reasonable limits and will overwhelm agents, making tool selection slower and more error-prone.
The tool surface is extremely thorough, covering org setup, services, providers, booking (internal/public/spec), finance, payroll, closing, disputes, clinical notes, treatment plans, and reporting. Gaps are rare and often intentional (e.g., no deliver via MCP, read-only treatment plans), so agents can complete most workflows end-to-end.