bookingkoala_list_invoicesBookingKoala: Invoices from the Invoice Dashboard with customer, amount and due date. Lists invoices from the Invoice Dashboard, the active ones or the ones on the Overdue tab. Each has customer, amount and due date. The invoice_id goes to resend_invoice. Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | active or overdue. Default: active. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful context: the Cotlet API key requirement with app access, and the note that invoice_id feeds resend_invoice. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but adds real value 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The return fields ('customer, amount and due date') are stated twice, once in the opening line and again after the tab list, which is avoidable redundancy. The content is front-loaded and otherwise short, but the repetition costs it a point.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description names the returned fields (customer, amount, due date) and explains the cross-tool use of invoice_id plus the auth prerequisite, making it usable as-is. Only pagination/enumeration behavior is left unaddressed.
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 coverage is 100%, so the enum and default for status are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of active vs overdue aligns with the parameter but adds no extra syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (lists) and resource (invoices from the Invoice Dashboard), and scopes it to active or overdue tabs. It also names the sibling resend_invoice that consumes the returned invoice_id, which helps an agent distinguish it, though it doesn't differentiate from other list tools like list_charges.
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 active/overdue scoping is implied rather than framed as explicit guidance, and it points to resend_invoice as the follow-on for an invoice_id. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement relative to alternatives.
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.