Skip to main content
Glama

List Invoices

list_invoices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when working with RetailHardHat invoices records in the connected organization. List construction invoices, not platform billing invoices. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
searchNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds approval-related context, but it is vague and does not clarify pagination, result ordering, or other behavior beyond annotations.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the core sentences are short. The final sentence about configurable MCP approval requirements is tangential and does not clearly earn its place in a list-invoices definition.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. But with several closely related invoice-listing siblings and 0% schema description coverage on all three parameters, the description is missing essential selection and invocation guidance.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions limit, offset, or search. With three parameters fully undocumented in the schema, the description provides no compensating meaning for correct invocation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List construction invoices,' and explicitly excludes platform billing invoices. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling invoice listers such as list_site_invoices, list_vendor_invoices, or list_bid_invoices.

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 gives one useful boundary by saying this is for construction invoices, not platform billing invoices. But it does not explain when to use this instead of the other invoice-listing siblings, and the approval sentence does not clarify tool selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources