Tiny (Olist Tiny)

tiny_list_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pesquisa notas fiscais (notas.fiscais.pesquisa.php). Paginado. filters (JSON) aceita dataInicial/dataFinal (DD/MM/AAAA), situacao, numeroNota, cpf_cnpj etc.

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": "tiny_list_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`search`	No
`account`	No
`filters`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details about pagination and supported filter keys/date format, but does not discuss response behavior, limits, or error cases.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded, and easy to scan. The internal endpoint reference, `notas.fiscais.pesquisa.php`, adds little value and slightly reduces clarity, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 simple read-only listing tool, the description provides enough to understand the basic use case: search invoices with pagination and filters. However, no output format is described, and effectively 3 of 4 parameters are not documented, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent that needs to construct calls reliably.

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

Parameters2/5

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. It explains the `filters` parameter well, including JSON keys and the DD/MM/AAAA date format, but leaves `search`, `account`, and even `page` semantics mostly undocumented beyond the implication of pagination.

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 clearly states that this tool searches invoices (notas fiscais), and mentions pagination and filter options. It is identifiable as a list/search tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from tiny_get_invoice or other listing tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It conveys that the tool is used for paginated invoice searching with filters, which gives reasonable usage context. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over tiny_get_invoice or other list/search alternatives.

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

All Tiny (Olist Tiny) 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.