lago_list_walletsList a customer's prepaid credit wallets. Lago API: GET /customers/{external_customer_id}/wallets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination. | |
| per_page | No | Number of records per page. | |
| external_customer_id | Yes | The customer external unique identifier. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the 'List' verb. The description adds the API method (GET) and endpoint, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response size limits. It does not contradict annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing the API reference. It is concise with no superfluous information.
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?
The description lacks information about the return value structure (no output schema), but the tool is a simple list operation. Pagination parameters are present but not explained in the description. For a read-only list tool with good parameter documentation, it is moderately complete but could be improved by mentioning response format.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions external_customer_id in the API path, but that is already described in the schema.
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 'a customer's prepaid credit wallets', and references the Lago API endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on wallets and customer context.
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 for listing wallets of a customer but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like other list tools. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use instructions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct entity and action (e.g., lago_get_customer vs. lago_create_customer, lago_list_invoices vs. lago_get_invoice), with no overlapping purposes. The separation between analytics, customer, invoice, subscription, and other resource types is clear.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lower_snake_case and the 'lago_' prefix. Actions like 'get', 'list', 'create', and 'retrieve-related' (e.g., lago_get_customer_current_usage) are uniform, making the naming predictable.
With 24 tools, the server covers a broad range of billing/analytics operations. While slightly high, each tool serves a distinct purpose for reading or creating core entities and analytics. The count is well-scoped for its domain.
The server overwhelmingly focuses on read operations (list/get) with only two write tools (create_customer, create_event). Missing CRUD for invoices, subscriptions, plans, add-ons, coupons, credit notes, and wallets limits agents to mostly read-only workflows, creating significant gaps for managing billing lifecycles.