list_paymentsList payments. OwnerRez API: GET /v2/payments. Use params for documented filters (e.g. booking_id, since_utc).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return per page (default set by OwnerRez, typically 10). | |
| offset | No | Number of items to skip (for paging; combine with limit). | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: no pagination semantics (limit/offset tradeoffs), no ordering of results, and no note that filters are passed straight through to the upstream API. The 'merged with the typed params' detail lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the upstream endpoint, and the filter mechanism. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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 low-complexity list tool with no required parameters and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly sufficient. The only omission is any hint about the returned record shape or result ordering, which is forgivable given there is no output schema.
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% and both pagination params are fully described in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description goes a step further by naming concrete filter keys (booking_id, since_utc) for the otherwise opaque free-form `params` object, which is real added value.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List payments') and even names the underlying REST endpoint GET /v2/payments, which pins down the operation precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_payment (single-item fetch), though the list/get naming convention makes the split reasonably evident.
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 tells the agent how to pass filters ('Use `params` for documented filters'), which implies the retrieval use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing this over get_payment, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.