list_invoice_paymentsList payments recorded against customer invoices, optionally filtered by invoice number, to track settlements and reconcile receivables.
Payments registered against customer invoices (inbetalningar). Optionally for one invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000) | |
| invoice_number | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain meaning of the resource but says nothing extra about result size, pagination behavior, or ordering beyond what the max parameter already states.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the filtering hint; nothing is padded. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient, though slightly sparse on connective detail.
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 zero-required-parameter list tool, the description plus annotations and schema give enough to call it correctly. With no output schema, a note on what a payment record contains would help, but the core invocation requirements are covered.
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 50%: max is fully documented in the schema (default 100, up to 2000), while invoice_number carries no schema description. The phrase "Optionally for one invoice" partially compensates by implying invoice_number is a filter, but it does not clarify whether results are limited to that invoice's payments or how the number is matched.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: payments registered against customer invoices, with the Swedish term (inbetalningar) aiding disambiguation. It implies a collection-listing scope distinct from get_invoice, though it never explicitly names sibling tools to differentiate itself.
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?
"Optionally for one invoice" hints at filtering but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as list_invoices or get_invoice. The agent must infer whether to call this or a sibling when it wants invoice payment data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.