mercoa_get_invoice_eventsGet the event/audit log for an invoice (status changes, approvals, payments). GET /invoice/{invoiceId}/events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events to return (1-100). | |
| endDate | No | End date filter (ISO 8601). | |
| invoiceId | Yes | Invoice ID or foreign ID. | |
| startDate | No | Start date filter (ISO 8601). | |
| startingAfter | No | Event ID cursor for pagination. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The 'readOnlyHint' annotation already indicates this is a read operation. The description adds context about the content of the events (status changes, approvals, payments) but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, or whether the data is ordered.
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 sentence that states the purpose, includes an example endpoint, and is free of superfluous information. It is front-loaded and 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?
While the tool has a moderate number of parameters (5) and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or default behavior of filters. Given the complexity, the description could include more context to aid effective use.
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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional information about the parameters; it relies entirely on the schema. Thus, the description provides no added value beyond 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 indicates the tool retrieves the event/audit log for an invoice, specifying the types of events (status changes, approvals, payments). It includes the HTTP method and endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. The sibling list includes 'mercoa_get_entity_events', which targets entities, so the 'invoice' context effectively differentiates.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use 'mercoa_get_entity_events' or other audit log tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use it.
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.