Lists Stripe billing invoices for the authenticated account.
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org_id | No | Optional organization id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lists' implies a read, but it does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or what 'authenticated account' scoping means versus an org scope — all material for a billing-data read with zero annotation coverage.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place. It is efficient but skirts under-specification, which is penalized in other dimensions.
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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no nested objects), but with no output schema and no annotations the description should at least sketch the return shape (invoice list, key fields) or pagination behavior. As written it covers only the happy-path purpose.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The phrase 'authenticated account' hints that the default scope is the caller's account and that org_id would narrow or override it, but the description never mentions org_id explicitly, so it adds little beyond the schema's terse 'Optional organization id'.
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 ('Stripe billing invoices') with a scope modifier ('for the authenticated account'). No sibling in the catalog deals with invoices, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, but the description also makes no effort to differentiate itself from anything.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when an agent should prefer another tool, and no mention of what the optional org_id does or when to supply it. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
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.