List invoices for the org (newest first) with status, client, total, due date and share link. Filter by status (draft/sent/paid/overdue/cancelled) or project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the sort order ('newest first') and enumerates the returned invoice fields, which helps an agent set expectations for the output. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but those are minor for this kind of read-only list.
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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core action and resource, then provides output fields and filter options. Every part is useful and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the essential details: what is returned, the ordering, and the available filters. There is no output schema, so the explicit field list is valuable, though pagination and result-size behavior are not mentioned. This is a minor gap given the low complexity of the operation.
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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It adds meaning by stating that invoices can be filtered by status or project and by repeating the status enum values, but it does not explain the project_id format, required fields, or how filters interact. Overall it partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves room for more detail.
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 clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('invoices'), the scope ('for the org'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It also lists the returned fields and available filters, making it easy to distinguish this tool from create/update invoice tools and other list_* tools.
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 implies usage through the tool name and 'List invoices for the org,' and the filter options clarify what the tool accepts. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related list tools such as tascan_list_payments or tascan_list_projects, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
Most tools map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
