Retrieve billing credit memos with pagination. Use limit and offset to manage the result set size and starting position.
List billing credit memos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of items to return per page. Defaults to 10. | |
| offset | No | Starting index for pagination. Defaults to 0. |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only (though inferable from 'list'), mention pagination behavior, describe the response shape, or disclose any side effects. With no annotations, the description fails to provide meaningful behavioral transparency.
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 very brief, but it is under-specified. It is essentially the tool name rendered as a sentence and adds no value beyond the name. It does not earn its place as a useful description.
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 tool with two documented pagination params and no output schema, a short description could be adequate. However, this one omits any explanation of response contents, typical usage, or differences from related billing list tools. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect.
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 description coverage is 100%; both limit and offset have complete descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already fully documents them. Baseline 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 'List billing credit memos' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name itself. It names a verb and resource, so it is not misleading, but it adds no information beyond the name and does nothing to differentiate the tool from sibling list tools other than naming the resource, which the name already does. This is essentially a tautology.
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 guidance about when to use this tool, what scenarios it fits, or how it relates to sibling tools like slide_list_billing_invoices or slide_list_billing_subscriptions. An agent receives no cues about selection or alternative choices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.