List unpaid invoices, including sent, partially paid, and overdue ones, optionally filtered by dossier, to help AI assistants query outstanding receivables.
Liste les factures impayées (envoyées, partiellement payées, en retard).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dossier | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / properties / dossierAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Dossier"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Liste' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical discloses the filter criteria, which is useful. However, it says nothing about whether the optional dossier filter defaults to all dossiers, whether results are paginated, or the auth scope.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the parenthetical doing real clarifying work. No filler.
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 simple read-only list with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed but leaves the dossier filter semantics and result scope unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap around the only parameter.
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 single 'dossier' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell from either source whether omitting it lists all dossiers or which dossier's unpaid invoices are returned.
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 ('Liste') and a precisely scoped resource ('factures impayées'), then defines the scope with the statuses it includes (envoyées, partiellement payées, en retard). This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling 'factures' (all invoices), though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this over 'factures', 'facture', or 'marquer_facture_payee'. The parenthetical clarifies what 'impayées' means but offers no usage context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.