List invoices for the authenticated user with optional status filtering and pagination. Requires authentication. Optional: status ('DRAFT', 'PENDING', 'PAID', 'CANCELLED', 'OVERDUE'), page (default 0), size (default 20)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and default pagination values, but it does not mention response shape, error behavior, ordering, or whether an absent status means 'all'. This is useful but not rich behavioral context.
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 short and front-loaded with the main operation, followed by auth and parameter details. The parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema but earns its place by adding enums and defaults; a bulleted layout would improve scannability.
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?
For a simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, who it is for, optional filters, and pagination defaults. However, it leaves out routing to related invoice tools and any return/error semantics, so an agent is not fully equipped to use it in all contexts.
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 low (25%) because page, size, and status lack schema descriptions. The tool description compensates by enumerating the allowed status values and giving defaults for page and size, adding real meaning beyond the bare property types. It does not go into bounds or interaction between filters, so not a perfect score.
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 starts with a specific verb and resource ('List invoices for the authenticated user') and mentions optional filtering and pagination, making the core purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like getInvoiceDetails or getInvoiceStatistics, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 states a prerequisite ('Requires authentication') and describes configurable options, but gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as getInvoiceDetails or when pagination is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.
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.
The set has several near-duplicate or heavily overlapping tools: initiateTransfer and transferDomain appear to do the same thing, and generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, suggestAlternatives, spinDomainWords, and addPrefix/addSuffixToDomain all occupy suggestion space. Account/profile tools like getAccountSummary, getMyProfile, getRecentActivity, and getMyAuditLogs also blur together.
Many tools follow verb_noun camelCase (createDnsRecord, listInvoices, updateContact), but the broader set mixes styles: osirAppCreateUpload vs osirAppList vs osirAppStatus, plus inconsistent verbs like check/verify/validate/preview for similar lookup actions. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full surface.
105 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, even one spanning domain registration, DNS, VPS, email, billing, app deployment, and site publishing. The surface would be far more coherent split into focused servers by domain.
Core domain, DNS, billing, VPS, mail, and app deployment workflows are broadly covered. However, there are notable gaps: no way to update or reassign the contacts on an existing domain, no update operation for host/glue records, and no VPS power operations like reboot or stop outside the external control panel.