whmcs_get_invoicesFetch WHMCS invoices using filters like status, client ID, and sort order to locate and manage billing records.
Get invoices with optional filtering
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| order | No | Sort order | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| userid | No | Filter by client ID | |
| orderby | No | Field to order by | |
| limitnum | No | Number of results | |
| limitstart | No | Starting offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only says 'Get invoices', implying a read operation, but does not confirm non-destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The filtering parameters are mentioned but not explained beyond the schema.
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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
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 and 6 optional parameters, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the return format, pagination (despite limitstart/limitnum), or that it returns a list of invoices. An agent cannot infer the full behavior from this minimal description.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters (e.g., 'Starting offset', 'Filter by client ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional filtering', which is already evident. 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 'Get invoices with optional filtering' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'invoices', indicating a list retrieval. The term 'optional filtering' hints at the filtering parameters. It distinguishes from the sibling 'whmcs_get_invoice' (singular) by implying multiple invoices, but could be more explicit (e.g., 'list all invoices').
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'whmcs_get_invoice' for a single invoice or 'whmcs_get_orders' for related records. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.