Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
logistics-mcp

logistics-mcp

by Azzaraell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

list_invoices

Retrieve customer invoices with amounts, due dates, and payment status. Filter by status or customer to identify unpaid invoices.

Instructions

List customer invoices with amount, due date, and payment status. Use for billing questions like which customers still have unpaid invoices.

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_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
statusNoFilter by payment status
customerNoCustomer name, substring match

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions returned fields but omits pagination (limit/offset behavior), ordering, or side effects. The tool is likely read-only but not stated. Significant gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no waste. The key action and context are front-loaded. Ideal conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover pagination, data ordering, or expected output format. It is adequate for a simple list but lacks completeness for advanced use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 50%; limit and offset have no schema descriptions and are not mentioned in the tool description. Status and customer have schema descriptions but no added context. The description does not explain how to use parameters effectively.

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 clearly states it lists invoices with amount, due date, and payment status, and provides a concrete billing use case. It is distinct from sibling tools which are shipment-related.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description suggests using it for billing questions but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. However, sibling tools cover different domains, so context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools