UseHourly

List invoices

list_invoices

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve invoice history (max 200) and filter by client, paid status, text, or issue-date range. Find unpaid invoices or review billing by client and period.

Instructions

Invoice history (newest 200 at most). Filter by text, client, paid status or issue-date range.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sort`	No	newest/oldest by issue date, highest/lowest by total	newest
`query`	No	Matches number, client, notes, project names and entry notes
`client`	No	Only this client: id or exact name
`status`	No	Filter by whether the invoice has been paid	all
`issued_to`	No	Only invoices issued on or before this date
`issued_from`	No	Only invoices issued on or after this date

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`invoices`	Yes
`unpaid_total`	Yes	Dollars still unpaid across the matches

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: results are silently capped at 200. It stops short of saying whether that is a truncation or an error, or how to page past it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, no filler, with the result-cap constraint front-loaded before the filter summary. Every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all six optional parameters are documented. The only real gap is what happens when the 200-item cap is hit and how sort interacts with it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter's enums and patterns are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter axes but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names the resource (invoice history) and states the key behaviors: a 200-item cap and the four filter axes. An agent can tell this is a filtered list rather than a fetch, though it never names get_invoice as the single-invoice alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the filter list — use it when you want invoices matching text, client, paid status, or a date range — but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_invoice, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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