Retrieve bonuses and deductions for a specific invoice by invoice ID, with pagination for reviewing and reconciling adjustments in Deel.
List adjustments (bonuses, deductions) for an invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| invoice_id | Yes | The invoice ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of pagination behavior, result ordering, or what 'adjustments' contain structurally.
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 efficient sentence with the key scope front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it offers no extra structural guidance.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention pagination behavior or the paginated nature of the response, which would help an agent using limit/offset.
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 all three parameters (invoice_id, limit, offset) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline expectation.
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 (List) and resource (adjustments for an invoice), and clarifies the resource with examples (bonuses, deductions). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_invoices or get_invoice. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent must infer that this is the tool for retrieving adjustments once an invoice_id is known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.