fortnox-mcp

List offers

list_offers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve and filter Fortnox offers (quotes) by customer, date range, status, or max rows to review sales opportunities.

Instructions

Quotes/offers (offerter).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_offers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`max`	No	Max rows to return (default 100, up to 2000)
`filter`	No
`to_date`	No
`from_date`	No
`customer_number`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no default row count, no pagination behavior, no note about what the filter enum states mean or the interaction between date bounds and filter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the brevity comes at the cost of all actionable content. There is nothing to front-load because nothing useful was written.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Five parameters, 80% undocumented, no output schema, a multi-value filter enum, and an ambiguous 'offers vs quotes' domain concept combine to make this definition far too thin for correct invocation. An agent cannot determine what a returned 'offer' is or how to filter meaningfully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 20% (just 'max'), and the description says nothing about any of the five parameters. The filter enum values (cancelled/expired/completed/ordercreated/etc.), the from_date/to_date date semantics, and customer_number are left entirely unexplained in both places. For a 5-param tool with low coverage, the description carries the burden and fails to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Quotes/offers (offerter)' merely restates the resource noun and mirrors the tool name/title, with no verb, scope, or listing behavior specified. The parenthetical Swedish synonym is the only additive information. An agent learns nothing about what shape of offers are returned or at what granularity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs any sibling, and no mention of filtering/preconditions. The sibling set is full of other list_* tools (list_orders, list_invoices, list_customers), so differentiation matters here, yet none is offered. It is not misleading, just absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.