Invoices issued to one client.
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": {
"clientId": "<clientId>"
},
"name": "list_client_invoices"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clientId | Yes | Client's User _id (from list_clients) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The only behavioral signal is the readOnlyHint annotation. The description adds no additional context such as pagination, auth needs, ordering, or output format. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation.
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 description is a single sentence fragment with zero fluff. It is appropriately short for a simple list tool, though it could be slightly improved by leading with an action verb.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage context (e.g., when to choose this over list_client_payments) and return value details, leaving some gaps.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented with a clear reference to list_clients. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description 'Invoices issued to one client' specifies the resource and scope but uses a noun phrase without a verb. It conveys what data is returned but does not distinguish this from sibling tools like list_client_payments or list_seller_invoices.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name and schema alone.
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.