Retrieves all configured billing providers to review or verify available payment integrations.
List all infrastructure billing providers
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": "billing_providers_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only enumeration operation and the 'all' scope, but it does not describe response format, pagination, access requirements, or potential costs. This is a modest gap for a parameterless list.
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 six-word sentence with no filler, tautology, or redundant phrasing. The verb and resource are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately clear.
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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is enough to invoke it, but there is no output schema and no description of what the returned provider objects look like. An agent knows it will get 'all providers' but not the shape or structure of the result.
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?
The input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters requiring additional documentation. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names a clear resource ('infrastructure billing providers'), and states the scope ('all'). It is distinct from the singular sibling `billing_provider_get`, which retrieves one provider.
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 wording implies this tool is for enumerating all billing providers, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must infer the contrast with `billing_provider_get` and related billing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.