lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

clio_list_bills

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Clio bills from your authorized connector account. Use this read-only operation to fetch bill records for a project, enabling quick access to billing data without writes.

Instructions

Clio connector operation list_bills (platform tool clio.list_bills).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	Yes
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "const": "read",
+  "title": "Effect",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "effect"
+]
```

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond that: the routing/authority constraint. It also notes 'effect: Required and must be read; Spring verifies it,' reinforcing the read-only nature. The 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write' line is boilerplate that sits awkwardly in a read-only tool, but it does not contradict the annotations since effect is constrained to 'read'. No contradiction found.

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 compact and structured: identity sentence, routing sentence, then an Args list. However, the opening sentence 'Clio connector operation `list_bills` (platform tool `clio.list_bills`)' largely duplicates the tool name and could be dropped or merged. The remaining lines are tight, so it is not bloated, but the redundancy prevents a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Invocation mechanics are adequately covered: all parameters are listed, the effect is pinned to 'read', and the routing authority is stated. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The major gaps are semantic: what bills are actually returned, what valid content belongs in the `arguments` JSON string, and how this tool relates to clio_request, clio_api_request, and clio_search as alternative Clio access paths. Given 7 parameters and a large sibling set, a bit more business context would make the description complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the full burden of explaining parameters — and it does, with an Args section covering all seven. Each parameter gets a one-line role ('project_id: Authenticated Project UUID', 'idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity', etc.). However, the most important parameter, `arguments`, is glossed as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without revealing what keys or filters list_bills actually accepts, and 'project_ref: Exact project correlation reference' is vague. Strong compensation for the schema gap, but not maximally informative.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the operation as 'Clio connector operation `list_bills` (platform tool `clio.list_bills`)' and adds a routing constraint, but the actual function is only conveyed by the tool name itself — the description never states what 'list bills' does in Clio (e.g., 'retrieves bills for the connected account'). It is a thin operational wrapper around the name rather than a semantic explanation, so it does not meaningfully distinguish itself from the dozens of sibling list tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like billcom_list_bills, quickbooks_list_bills, xero_list_bills, and smokeball_list_bills, an agent gets no explicit or even implied direction about selecting the Clio connector. The only contextual nugget, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' describes a constraint, not usage conditions, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server