List billing contracts including their service lines, with cursor pagination to navigate through pages of results.
List billing contracts, each with the service lines it is made of, cursor-paginated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous page; omit for the first page. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page, clamped 1-200 (default 50). | |
| clientIds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose that this is a read-only listing operation, that each result includes service lines, and that pagination is cursor-based. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, ordering, or how the clientIds filter affects results, which leaves some behavioral gaps.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler: it states the action, the result shape, and the pagination mode upfront. Every segment earns its place, and an agent can absorb the core behavior immediately.
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 optional-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, this description covers the main call shape and return composition. It does not explain the filtering semantics of clientIds or the structure of service lines, so it is adequate but not fully 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 documents cursor and pageSize, and the phrase 'cursor-paginated' reinforces the cursor parameter's role. However, clientIds has no schema description and the description does not explain that it filters contracts by client, leaving one of three parameters meaningfully under-specified.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List billing contracts', and adds that each contract includes its service lines and is cursor-paginated. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which target contracts.
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 phrase 'List billing contracts' clearly signals when to use this tool: when the agent needs a paginated collection of billing contracts. There are no competing contract-listing siblings or exclusion conditions, so explicit when-not-to-use guidance is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.