lago_analytics_gross_revenueMonthly gross revenue (finalized invoice payments + advance fees, net of tax/discounts). Lago API: GET /analytics/gross_revenue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| months | No | Number of months to return. | |
| currency | No | Currency filter (ISO 4217, e.g. USD). | |
| external_customer_id | No | Filter revenue at the customer level. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true. Description adds that it is a GET request and explains the revenue composition (finalized payments, advance fees, net of tax/discounts). This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though rate limits or other constraints are not mentioned.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence describing the tool and one sentence for the API endpoint. Every word provides value, no fluff.
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?
No output schema exists. Description lacks details on the return format (e.g., array of month-revenue objects). While the API endpoint is given, the description could be more complete for an analytical tool, missing pagination or response structure.
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%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add additional meaning to parameters beyond what is in the schema. The 'months' parameter is implied by 'monthly', but no further details.
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?
Description clearly states the tool returns monthly gross revenue, defining components (finalized invoice payments + advance fees, net of tax/discounts) and providing the API endpoint. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool lago_analytics_mrr, though not explicitly contrasted.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lago_analytics_mrr. The description only explains what it does, not the context or exclusions. Given the sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines would be helpful.
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.