Retrieve an aged receivables report to see unpaid customer balances grouped by age, enabling quick identification of overdue accounts and cash flow issues.
Get an Aged Receivables (A/R Aging Summary) report. Shows outstanding customer 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Get' a report, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, rate limits, or other constraints. The description is adequate for a simple report retrieval.
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 concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. No extraneous information.
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 report with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It could optionally detail the age groupings (e.g., 0-30, 31-60 days), but this is not essential for correct invocation.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (report_date), including format and default. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving an Aged Receivables (A/R Aging Summary) report, specifying it shows outstanding customer balances grouped by age. This is distinct from sibling report tools like qbo_reports_aged_payables or qbo_reports_balance_sheet.
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 implies usage for viewing aging of customer balances, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other report tools (e.g., aged payables, profit and loss). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.