Skip to main content
Glama
CSOAI-ORG

Stripe Billing MCP

by CSOAI-ORG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_invoices

Retrieve a customer's recent invoices by Stripe customer ID, with optional limit and status filters. Returns a structured list for billing analysis and review.

Instructions

List recent invoices for a customer.

Args: customer_id: Stripe customer ID (cus_...) limit: Number of invoices to return (default 10, max 100) status: Filter by status: draft, open, paid, uncollectible, void (optional)

Behavior: This tool generates structured output without modifying external systems. Output is deterministic for identical inputs. No side effects. Free tier: 10/day rate limit. Pro tier: unlimited. No authentication required for basic usage.

When to use: Use this tool when you need structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards.

When NOT to use: Not suitable for real-time production decision-making without human review of results. Behavioral Transparency: - Side Effects: This tool is read-only and produces no side effects. It does not modify any external state, databases, or files. All output is computed in-memory and returned directly to the caller. - Authentication: No authentication required for basic usage. Pro/Enterprise tiers require a valid MEOK API key passed via the MEOK_API_KEY environment variable. - Rate Limits: Free tier: 10 calls/day. Pro tier: unlimited. Rate limit headers are included in responses (X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset). - Error Handling: Returns structured error objects with 'error' key on failure. Never raises unhandled exceptions. Invalid inputs return descriptive validation errors. - Idempotency: Fully idempotent — calling with the same inputs always produces the same output. Safe to retry on timeout or transient failure. - Data Privacy: No input data is stored, logged, or transmitted to external services. All processing happens locally within the MCP server process.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
statusNo
api_keyNo
customer_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively discloses side effects (read-only, no external modification), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This is thorough, explicit behavioral disclosure beyond what structured data provides.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear headings and front-loaded summary, but it is repetitive: the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections restate side effects, authentication, and rate limits. The 'When to use' section is generic filler that adds noise rather than 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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: safety profile, auth, rate limits, error behavior, idempotency, and determinism. The main gaps are the undocumented response shape/pagination and the ambiguous api_key parameter, but the tool remains safely invokable for basic usage.

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 0%, and the description compensates well for customer_id (prefix and meaning), limit (default 10, max 100), and status (allowed values). However, the schema's api_key parameter is not explained as an argument; the auth section references an environment variable instead, leaving ambiguity about how to pass an API key through the tool call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List recent invoices for a customer.' It further clarifies the customer_id as a Stripe customer ID (cus_...), and no sibling tool performs invoice listing, so it is clearly distinguishable from tools like create_customer or search_customers.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

Although 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections exist, the content is generic boilerplate about 'structured analysis or classification of inputs against established frameworks or standards' that is unrelated to listing invoices. It does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide actionable selection criteria, and the guidance is actively misleading.

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