Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet

List invoices

list_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Invoices with customer, job, due date, total, amount paid and amount due. Lists invoices, newest first, with customer, jobs, invoice and due dates, total, paid and due (total minus payments and credits). status approved (default) is every approved invoice not fully paid; overdue is the ones past their due date; paid, draft, cancelled and all as named. customer_id lists that customer's invoices, and status then filters the page you get. Pass next_cursor back as cursor.

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

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).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds genuinely useful behavior: newest-first ordering, the exact definition of 'approved' (approved but not fully paid), how amount due is computed (total minus payments and credits), and the next_cursor round-trip. It stops short of covering page size limits or what an empty result means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and return fields, then status semantics, then filters, then pagination — a logical progression with no filler. The opening fragment ('Invoices with customer, job, due date, total, amount paid and amount due') largely repeats the field list in the next sentence, a small redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With five optional params, no output schema and an 80% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the return shape, ordering, status semantics, filtering interaction and pagination. Remaining gaps (page size bounds, empty-result behavior) are minor and partly covered by the schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it likely clarifies status semantics beyond the enum description and explains the customer_id-plus-status filtering order, which the schema does not convey. It says nothing about search or limit, which are schema-documented or self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (invoices), plus the exact fields returned (customer, job, due date, total, paid, due) and the ordering (newest first). An agent can immediately distinguish this from send_invoice, create_invoice_from_quote or record_payment without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the semantics of every status value and clarifies the non-obvious interaction between customer_id and status (status filters the page you get). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Tradify MCP Server and API by Cotlet tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.