Retrieve Dicker Data account invoices for a specified date range. Enter start and end dates to access invoice records.
List Dicker Data account invoices within a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | End date, e.g. 2026-01-31. | |
| startDate | No | Start date, e.g. 2026-01-01. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden itself. It conveys a read-style 'list' operation and a date filter, but it doesn't disclose whether the operation is non-mutating, how results are returned or paginated, or any edge-case behavior with the date range.
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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter list tool.
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 list of invoices with two optional date parameters, the description is minimally viable, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the response shape, pagination, and explicit routing to sibling tools. It is adequate, not complete.
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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage with concrete examples, and the description's 'within a date range' maps naturally to startDate and endDate. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it earns the baseline.
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') and resource ('Dicker Data account invoices'), and adds a date-range scope, which makes the tool's core action unambiguous. It is distinguishable from close siblings such as dickerdata_get_invoice_details by the list-vs-detail contrast, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.
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 date-range wording implies this is for fetching a batch of invoices over a period, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related tools like dickerdata_get_invoice_details or how it relates to dickerdata_list_orders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.