List read-only ESB domain invoices/orders for the authenticated Encirca account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| partner_id | No | ESB partner id. Optional if ENCIRCA_MCP_DEFAULT_PARTNER_ID is set. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| invoices | No | ||
| partnerId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful context by specifying that it lists ESB domain invoices/orders, which goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or that the results are scoped to the authenticated account, though the annotation openWorldHint=false implies scope.
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 a single, concise sentence that packs purpose, scope, and authentication context. No superfluous words.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (3 optional params, no enums, simple output schema), the description adequately covers the core behavior. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described. However, the description could mention that limit and status are optional filters to aid usage, but the schema handles that partially.
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 description coverage is only 33% (only partner_id has a description). The description does not detail the parameters further, but the schema itself defines limit, status, and partner_id with defaults and constraints. The description's mention of 'invoices/orders' and 'authenticated Encirca account' adds context about what status might filter (e.g., invoice statuses) and that partner_id relates to an ESB partner, which partially compensates for the low coverage.
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 read-only ESB domain invoices/orders for the authenticated Encirca account. It uses specific verbs ('list') and resources ('invoices/orders'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_my_domains or list_expiring_domains by targeting financial records.
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?
The description implies the tool is for viewing invoices and orders, and the 'read-only' qualifier suggests it's safe to call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_my_domains. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond authentication.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
