MCP Cliniko Server

display_invoices_for_date

Retrieve invoices from Cliniko for a specific date to review billing information. Supports summary, detailed, or JSON output formats for analysis.

Instructions

Display all existing invoices for a specific date (READ-ONLY). Invoices must be created manually in Cliniko.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target_date": "<target_date>"
    },
    "name": "display_invoices_for_date"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_date`	Yes	Date to display invoices for (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`display_format`	No	How to display the invoices	detailed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Declares the tool as READ-ONLY, providing clarity on its safety profile. Also mentions that invoices must be created manually, implying it does not create them. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior for missing dates.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The main action and key constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence adds unique value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a prerequisite. However, it does not explain the output format or error handling (e.g., no invoices on that date). Slightly above average due to the READ-ONLY note.

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 both parameters (target_date format and display_format enum). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states it displays invoices for a specific date and is read-only. The description uses specific verb 'display' and resource 'invoices' with a date filter. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_invoices or get_invoice, which have overlapping functionality.

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?

Provides one usage note ('Invoices must be created manually in Cliniko') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_invoices or get_invoice. No when-not-to-use or explicit selection criteria.

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