mcp-server-smallinvoice

list_offers

Read-only

Retrieve offers with filtering, full-text search, and pagination. Include optional fields to get extra details.

Instructions

Returns list of offers

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_offers"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects). It merely restates the tool's basic function without enriching transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. While there is no wasted text, it could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning filtering or pagination) without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what an 'offer' is, what the response contains, or how to effectively use the parameters, leaving agents with insufficient context for proper invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related information beyond what the schema already provides; it simply states the function without elaborating on the parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description 'Returns list of offers' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like 'get_offer', 'create_offer', and other list tools. Despite brevity, it unambiguously states its purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_offer' for a single offer, or filtering parameters). No exclusions or context for selection are given.

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

Deploy Server