Fetch paginated infrastructure billing history from a Remnawave VPN panel to review charges and audit past transactions. Use offset and size parameters to control results.
Get infra billing history
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of billing records to return, no more than 500 | |
| start | No | Start index (offset) of the billing history records to return, default is 0 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing beyond that—no note on pagination, authentication requirements, or what the returned history contains. It is consistent with the annotations but contributes almost no behavioral context of its own.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While extremely terse, it is structurally clean and appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though it leaves no room for useful scoping details.
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?
The description is minimally complete for a simple read-only list with full schema documentation and safety annotations. It still lacks sibling disambiguation and does not describe the return shape or pagination behavior, which are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (size, start) are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 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 (Get) and resource (infra billing history), so the agent can identify it as a read/list operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like billing_history_create/delete or billing_providers_list, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, such as billing_history_create, billing_history_delete, or other billing list tools. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.