Groundbase

List invoices

invoices_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List invoices (filter by customer, status, text; outstanding totals per currency), or id for one with lines, charges and amount paid. With id: payments (ledger), creditNotes, or recurring. report: aging | revenue | tax, from/to YYYY-MM-DD.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Matches number and customer.
`id`	No	One invoice.
`to`	No
`from`	No
`limit`	No	Default 100.
`offset`	No
`report`	No
`status`	No	draft \| issued \| partially_paid \| paid \| void
`payments`	No	With id: its payment ledger.
`companyId`	No
`contactId`	No
`recurring`	No	With id: its repeat schedule.
`creditNotes`	No	With id: its credit notes.
`outstanding`	No	Only invoices with money still owed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / from
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedInput schema / properties / id / description

Previous value: -"Invoice id. Returns that one invoice."New value: +"One invoice."

changedInput schema / properties / payments / description

Previous value: -"With id: return the payment ledger (incl. reversed payments)."New value: +"With id: its payment ledger."

changedInput schema / properties / recurring / description

Previous value: -"With id: its repeat schedule (null if none)."New value: +"With id: its repeat schedule."

addedInput schema / properties / report

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "aging",
+    "revenue",
+    "tax"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / to
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed7 schema fields changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / companyId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedInput schema / properties / contactId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedInput schema / properties / creditNotes

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With id: its credit notes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default 100.",
+  "maximum": 500,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / offset

Added value: +{
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / q

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Matches number and customer.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / recurring

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With id: its repeat schedule (null if none).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Invoice id. Returns that one invoice.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payments

Added value: +{
+  "description": "With id: return the payment ledger (incl. reversed payments).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine beyond-schema behavior: list mode returns outstanding totals per currency; `id` mode returns lines, charges and amount paid; sub-resource flags (payments/creditNotes/recurring) are only meaningful when `id` is supplied. That is real depth the annotations do not carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Compact with no filler, but the fragmentary, semicolon-and-parenthetical style ('With id: payments (ledger), creditNotes, or recurring.') makes a three-mode tool harder to parse than a short bulleted breakdown would. Front-loaded, yet the compression costs readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 14-parameter, three-mode, no-output-schema tool, the description explains the modes and key return payloads but omits how to choose among the several filter parameters, pagination semantics, and what each report actually returns. Adequate as a map, insufficient as a manual.

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

Parameters3/5

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

At 57% schema coverage, the description compensates partially: it clarifies that `id` returns lines/charges/amount paid, that payments/creditNotes/recurring are 'with id' modifiers, and that `from`/`to` take YYYY-MM-DD in report mode — detail absent from the schema. But `companyId`, `contactId`, `limit`, `offset` and the exact `q` vs customer-filter distinction remain undocumented in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource (invoices) and enumerates three distinct modes: filtered list, single-invoice-by-id, and reports. A reader can distinguish it from invoices_manage, but the telegraphic phrasing ('or `id` for one with lines, charges and amount paid') blurs the boundary between 'list' and 'fetch one' rather than stating it cleanly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implicitly signals mode selection (use `id` for a single invoice, `report` for aging/revenue/tax, otherwise list with filters), but never states when to prefer this over invoices_manage or invoice_payments_manage, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Groundbase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?