InvoiceVista Invoice Maker

Check unpaid and overdue invoices

get_receivables_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when someone asks how much customers owe, what is unpaid or overdue, or how old unpaid invoices are. Returns open invoice count and amount, the invoices marked overdue, and age buckets by days past due, from the newest 500 invoices; partially paid ones are counted but left out of amounts. Not for chasing or charging a customer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`businessId`	Yes	Business id: 24 lowercase hexadecimal characters

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`aging`	Yes	Fully owed open invoices by days past their due date (issue date when none) as of asOfDate. Invoice and customer identifiers, exact dates, contacts, tax ids, addresses, notes, line text, bank or card data, processor data and payment actions are never returned.
`asOfDate`	Yes	UTC calendar date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`currency`	Yes	ISO 4217 alpha-3 business currency, or null when unset
`overdueAmount`	Yes
`openInvoiceCount`	Yes
`outstandingAmount`	Yes
`amountMissingCount`	Yes
`sourceInvoiceCount`	Yes
`overdueInvoiceCount`	Yes	Fully owed invoices whose status is OVERDUE; a PENDING invoice past its due date is counted only in aging
`sourceInvoiceCountIsLowerBound`	Yes
`partiallyPaidCountExcludedFromAmount`	Yes	Open partially paid invoices left out of every amount because their remaining balance is not stored

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / businessId / description

Previous value: -"Tenant-owned InvoiceVista business id"New value: +"Business id: 24 lowercase hexadecimal characters"

addedOutput schema / properties / aging / description

Added value: +"Fully owed open invoices by days past their due date (issue date when none) as of asOfDate. Invoice and customer identifiers, exact dates, contacts, tax ids, addresses, notes, line text, bank or card data, processor data and payment actions are never returned."

addedOutput schema / properties / overdueInvoiceCount / description

Added value: +"Fully owed invoices whose status is OVERDUE; a PENDING invoice past its due date is counted only in aging"

addedOutput schema / properties / partiallyPaidCountExcludedFromAmount / description

Added value: +"Open partially paid invoices left out of every amount because their remaining balance is not stored"

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the 500-newest-invoice cap and the quirk that partially paid invoices are counted but excluded from amounts. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but those are not implied by the annotations either.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, all load-bearing: usage trigger, return shape with caveats, and exclusion. The most decision-relevant information (what it's for) is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists so return structure need not be re-explained, and the description still supplies the non-obvious limits (500-invoice scope, partial-payment handling) and boundary against adjacent tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (businessId) and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema documenting the 24-hex-character pattern. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific resource (receivables) with concrete outcomes: open invoice count/amount, overdue invoices, and age buckets by days past due. An agent can distinguish this from get_revenue_summary or get_quote_pipeline_summary without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('when someone asks how much customers owe, what is unpaid or overdue') and an explicit exclusion ('Not for chasing or charging a customer'). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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

All InvoiceVista Invoice Maker 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?