list_invoicesInvoices with customer, job, due date, total, amount paid and amount due.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | next_cursor from the previous call. | |
| search | No | Matches number, reference or customer. | |
| status | No | approved (sent, not fully paid; default), overdue, paid, draft, cancelled or all. | approved |
| customer_id | No | Only this customer's invoices (list_customers). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail of which fields each invoice carries, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or that the default status filter is 'approved' (which materially changes what comes back).
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?
A single short fragment with no waste, but it spends its only sentence on output fields and omits the operation itself. Efficient, yet under-specified rather than concise.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly fills the biggest gap by enumerating returned invoice fields, which is the most valuable thing it could add for a read tool. Missing are pagination behavior and the default status='approved' scoping, which matter for a list tool but are partially recoverable from the cursor and status schema descriptions.
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 80% with only 'limit' lacking a description (it still has default 50 and min/max bounds), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all — the listed fields are return values, not filters, so it neither compensates for the limit gap nor clarifies filter interactions.
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 is a noun fragment listing returned fields (customer, job, due date, total, paid, due) rather than stating a verb. Combined with the name list_invoices it's inferable as a listing operation, but nothing distinguishes it from list_quotes, list_jobs or list_customers beyond the resource word.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings (list_quotes, get_job, list_customers) or versus fetching a single invoice. It also never mentions that results are filterable by status, search or customer, so an agent gets no cue about the querying workflow.
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.