Histórico de faturamentos. Os pares de data são obrigatórios em conjunto: billing_start_date com billing_end_date, e due_start_date com due_end_date.
Bulk support: accepts client_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| client_ids | No | ||
| nfe_number | No | ||
| due_end_date | No | ||
| ticket_number | No | ||
| due_start_date | No | ||
| billing_end_date | No | ||
| billing_start_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the constraint about date pairs being mandatory together, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. It also mentions bulk support. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or what happens if no filters are provided.
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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. The date-pair constraint is clearly highlighted. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but overall it's efficient.
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 11 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the meaning of most parameters, the behavior of the 'type' filter, or the response format. The date-pair constraint is helpful but insufficient for an agent to correctly construct queries with all available filters.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description only mentions date pairs and client_ids for bulk support. It does not explain the 'type' enum (billed, reversed, paid), limit/offset semantics, nfe_number, ticket_number, or client_id vs client_ids relationship. With 11 parameters and zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 states 'Histórico de faturamentos' (billing history), which clearly indicates the tool retrieves billing history records. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on billing history, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like tiflux_list_tickets or tiflux_get_tickets. The verb is implied (retrieve/list) but the resource is specific.
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?
The description provides a key usage guideline: date pairs must be used together (billing_start_date with billing_end_date, due_start_date with due_end_date). It also mentions bulk support via client_ids. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the date pairing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.