Generate an aged payables report that groups outstanding vendor balances by age, enabling you to monitor cash flow and spot overdue invoices needing payment.
Get an Aged Payables (A/P Aging Summary) report. Shows outstanding vendor balances grouped by age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_date | No | Report as-of date (YYYY-MM-DD format, default: today) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read-only report retrieval with no side effects. The one-line description adequately conveys the tool's nature, though it does not mention potential data freshness or permission requirements.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the essential information, and contains no extraneous text. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context. It explains the report content and purpose. However, it doesn't describe the output structure or differentiate from other report tools, but that is acceptable for a straightforward report.
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% with one parameter (report_date) having a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves an Aged Payables (A/P Aging Summary) report, showing outstanding vendor balances grouped by age. The verb 'Get' and specific resource name distinguish it from sibling tools like aged_receivables or vendor_expenses.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No comparison to other QBO reports or use cases is mentioned, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.