qgiv_list_recent_refundsThe most recent refunds (read-only): id, original transaction, refund and settle dates, amount, payment type, last four digits, fund. POST /reporting/refunds/last/{limit}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Records to return (1-100, default 25). | |
| include_contact | No | Include donor contact details (email, phone, postal address). Off by default: names, ids and amounts only. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so '(read-only)' adds nothing new. The description does contribute useful context by disclosing the underlying POST /reporting/refunds/last/{limit} endpoint, which is non-obvious for a read operation.
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?
A single front-loaded clause lists the return fields, followed by the endpoint. No filler; arguably the raw endpoint path is the least valuable part, keeping it just under a 5.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, which compensates well; annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers both parameters. Only ordering/pagination behavior for 'most recent' is left implicit.
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 100%, so both limit and include_contact are already well documented in the schema. The description only echoes limit via the endpoint template and says nothing about include_contact, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data.
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 recent refunds') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like qgiv_list_refunds_by_date, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus qgiv_list_refunds_by_date or qgiv_get_refund. 'Most recent' implies a recency-based listing, but the agent must infer whether date-range or single-refund retrieval is preferable.
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.