list_direct_debit_paymentsRetrieve all payments collected under a direct debit mandate since a given date by supplying the mandate UID and start date.
Lists the payments taken under a direct debit mandate since a date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | Yes | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| mandateUid | Yes | Mandate UID |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds the per-mandate scoping constraint, which is useful, but does not describe pagination, ordering, or result limits. With annotations carrying the safety profile, 3 is appropriate.
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 clause with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. 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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations give an agent enough to call it correctly. It could be richer about return shape or pagination, but it is not required given the structured data.
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 description coverage is 100%: both mandateUid and since are documented with formats and patterns in the schema. The description only re-states that payments are scoped to a mandate and a start date, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
Clear verb 'lists' and resource 'payments taken under a direct debit mandate', with a stated scope (since a date). It distinguishes itself from sibling mandate tools like get_direct_debit_mandate or list_direct_debit_mandates, which deal with the mandate itself rather than its payments. It falls short of 5 only because it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to route the agent.
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 'since a date' phrase implies the tool is for retrieving a historical payment window, which is a usage cue, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Adequate minimum but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.