Skip to main content
Glama

Supplier Invoice Tool

List the month's invoices

list_invoices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Every invoice in the book for a month, with its lines, status and any problems.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
monthYesYYYY-MM, for example 2026-11.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return-shape context ('with its lines, status and any problems'), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but 'any problems' is undefined and there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or behavior for an empty month.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the scope and the payload contents come first. It is efficient, though so compressed that the meaning of 'problems' is left dangling.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers selection and roughly indicates the return payload. It falls short on what the returned statuses and 'problems' actually are and on any behavioral edge cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: the 'month' param already documents YYYY-MM with an example. The description only restates 'for a month' and adds no format, timezone, or boundary semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list every invoice) and narrows the scope to a single month, then announces the payload ('with its lines, status and any problems'). It does not name a distinguishing alternative such as month_summary, but the exhaustiveness ('every invoice') sets it apart from summarization siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus month_summary, review_invoice, or price_alerts, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Scope ('every invoice ... for a month') only weakly implies that it is the exhaustive listing tool.

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.