list_overdue_invoicesList overdue Stripe invoices oldest first, showing who owes, the amount due, days late, and payment links so collections teams can prioritize follow-up.
Open Stripe invoices that are past their due date, oldest first, with who owes it, how much, how many days late, and the customer's payment link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| min_days_overdue | No | Only invoices at least this many days past due. |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it specifies the status filter ('open'), the sort order ('oldest first'), and the shape of each record (who owes, amount, days late, payment link), which tells the agent what a call will actually yield.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, trailing into return-field detail. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the ordering, which is the key missing piece. It does not explain pagination or how results behave past the 100-item cap, a minor gap for a pure read tool with safety annotations.
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 only 50% — min_days_overdue is documented in the schema, while limit is not. The description says nothing about either parameter, not even how the 'oldest first' ordering interacts with a result cap, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete operation and resource ('Open Stripe invoices that are past their due date') plus sort order and the fields returned, so the agent can picture the result. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like receivables_summary, but the noun phrase 'open ... invoices past due' is naturally distinct from a summary or a reminder-send action.
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?
There is no sentence telling the agent when to prefer this over receivables_summary or customer_payment_history, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement itself — an agent will infer 'call this to get the overdue list' but must reason about the other tools on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.