Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rocketmatter-mcp

rocketmatter-mcp

by RosenAdvertising
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_payments

Retrieve a paginated list of invoice payments to manage financial records.

Instructions

List invoice payments with pagination.

Tool call template

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_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
page_sizeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions pagination but does not address read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns all payments or only invoice-related ones. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and concise, achieving its purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a listing tool with pagination and siblings like list_ap_payments, more context (e.g., scope of payments, sorting, read-only indication) would improve completeness. It is minimally adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'pagination' without referencing 'page' or 'page_size', adding no meaning beyond the schema's defaults and titles. The schema itself provides some hints (e.g., defaults), but the description falls short.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'invoice payments' with a qualifier 'with pagination'. It clearly states what the tool does, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_ap_payments', which may have overlapping scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_ap_payments). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, default behavior, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools