Retrieve billing invoices with pagination support. Specify limit and offset to control the number of invoices returned per page.
List billing invoices.
| 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 whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether the list is scoped to a specific account or all invoices, or any rate limits or side effects. The description is too sparse to convey meaningful behavior beyond the bare action.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and every word earns its place.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not indicate the scope of the list (e.g., all invoices, current account), the response shape, or any filtering behavior. The agent cannot infer what a billing invoice object looks like or what fields are returned, creating a significant gap.
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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (limit and offset), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents pagination semantics adequately, so no penalty is warranted.
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 invoices' clearly states the verb (list) and the specific resource (billing invoices), distinguishing it from sibling tools like slide_list_billing_credit_memos and slide_list_billing_subscriptions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those tools, which prevents a perfect score.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or recommend other billing-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.