in_outstanding_summaryAggregate open receivables by computing total outstanding and overdue balances plus top debtors, helping you assess unpaid invoices and prioritize collections.
Aggregate open receivables: totals for outstanding balance and overdue balance, plus the top debtors. Computed from payable/overdue invoice listings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | How many top debtors to return (default 10). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the figures are computed from invoice listings, signalling derived rather than stored totals, but says nothing about currency handling, the window that defines "overdue", or whether results are cached.
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?
Two tight sentences with the resource and its returned figures front-loaded; nothing is padding. Minor friction: "payable/overdue invoice listings" mixes payables terminology into a receivables tool and could momentarily confuse an agent.
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 one-optional-parameter aggregate with no output schema, the description could say more about the shape of the response (per-debtor fields, currency, sort order) and how "overdue" is determined. The high-level contents are conveyed, but key return semantics are left open.
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% and the sole 'top' parameter is documented with its default and 1-50 bounds, so the schema already does the work. The description's mention of "top debtors" only loosely corroborates it and adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 and resource: "Aggregate open receivables" with the exact figures returned (outstanding balance, overdue balance, top debtors). It is clearly an aggregation tool rather than a listing, which implicitly separates it from in_list_invoices and in_list_payments, but no sibling is named.
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?
Use is only implied by the word "Aggregate" and by the note that the data is derived from invoice listings — an agent can infer this is the summary shortcut versus paging through in_list_invoices, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use rule is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.