Retrieve paginated Wave invoices to review and manage your billing records.
List invoices from Wave with pagination
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| pageSize | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly signals a read-only list operation with pagination support, which are the main behavioral traits. However, with no annotations present, it carries the full burden and does not disclose defaults, page size limits, sort order, or the shape of returned data.
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?
The description is a single concise phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the pagination qualifier. It could be slightly richer without becoming verbose, but as is it is efficient.
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 two-parameter list tool, the description provides the essential context (resource + pagination) and suffices for basic invocation. However, it lacks details about pagination semantics (e.g., zero-indexing, maximum pageSize) and the return format, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage and the two parameters (page, pageSize) have no schema descriptions. The tool description only mentions 'pagination,' which loosely maps to the parameters but does not clarify their individual meaning, defaults, or constraints. This under-compensates for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.
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?
Description explicitly states the action ('List') and resource ('invoices') and adds scope ('from Wave') and a distinguishing feature ('with pagination'). This clearly differentiates it from get_invoice (single vs. list) and list_customers (different resource).
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 description implies it should be used when paginated listing of invoices is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No guidance on when to use this tool versus get_invoice or export_invoice_json is provided within the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.