list_invoicesList the account's invoices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | One row per Stripe invoice — id, number, amount, currency, status, period and the hosted invoice / PDF links. | |
| meta | No | Pagination for the list — page, limit and the total row count. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "description": "One row per Stripe invoice — id, number, amount, currency, status, period and the hosted invoice / PDF links.",
+ "items": {},
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "meta": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Pagination for the list — page, limit and the total row count.",
+ "properties": {
+ "limit": {
+ "description": "Maximum rows per page.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "page": {
+ "description": "Zero-based index of the page returned.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "total": {
+ "description": "Total rows matching the query across all pages.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scope 'account's invoices,' which is a useful but minimal behavioral detail. It does not disclose pagination, ordering, or completeness of the returned invoice set.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource without any filler or irrelevant detail.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return values, and no additional parameters or prerequisites need explanation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description's 'account's' scope clarifies that no account identifier is needed, which aligns with the empty input schema.
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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('the account's invoices'), making the core purpose immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from related billing tools like get_billing among the many siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_billing or list_reports. It relies entirely on the tool name and title to convey appropriate usage, with no exclusions or context about whether invoices are historical or current.
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.