productive_list_line_itemsList line items for a specific invoice to see how quantity times unit price determines the invoice amount.
List line items for a specific invoice. Line items determine the invoice amount (quantity x unit_price).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (starts at 1) | |
| page_size | No | Number of results per page (max 200) | |
| invoice_id | Yes | The invoice ID to list line items for (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds a useful domain insight—that line items determine the invoice amount via quantity × unit_price—but does not state the pagination behavior (page, page_size), authentication requirements, or the safe, read-only nature of the operation.
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?
Two short, well-structured sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the secondary domain insight is succinctly appended.
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, three-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. Its gaps are in behavioral disclosure (pagination, read-only nature) and usage distinction, which are minor but leave the description as adequate rather than complete.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters (invoice_id, page, page_size) with clear semantics. The description only reiterates the invoice_id requirement and adds no new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (line items) scoped to a parent (a specific invoice). Clear and distinct from siblings like productive_create_line_item or productive_delete_line_item, though it doesn't name them explicitly.
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?
The tool's read-only listing nature and its required invoice_id parameter imply usage context. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.