mcp-server-smallinvoice

list_isrs

Read-only

Retrieve a list of ISR payment slips with optional search, filter, and pagination to manage Swiss invoicing records.

Instructions

Returns list of ISRs

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_isrs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`with`	No	Comma separated, optional keys that should be included in the response.
`q`	No	Value for full text search
`filter`	No	Filter expression (JSON)
`limit`	No	Limits the number of items returned. Number in a range [1-200]
`offset`	No	Offset of the first item to return. The offset of the initial item is 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Returns list'. No disclosure of pagination, rate limits, or what an ISR is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise, single sentence with no wasted words. However, it may be too terse, lacking information that could be included without significant bloat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, description is minimal. Does not mention filtering capabilities (q, filter) or return format, leaving gaps for agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states verb 'Returns' and resource 'list of ISRs', clearly indicating the function. It distinguishes from 'get_isr' (singular) but lacks scope details like 'all' or 'filtered'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 such as 'get_isr' for a single ISR or other list_* tools. No mention of prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server