Skip to main content
Glama

client_invoice_list

Retrieve a list of client invoices filtered by status, due date, creation date, or other criteria.

Instructions

List client invoices with optional filters

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number
statusNoFilter by status
sort_byNoSort field and direction (e.g. 'created_at:desc')
due_dateNoFilter by exact due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
per_pageNoItems per page (max 100)
due_date_toNoFilter by due date (to, YYYY-MM-DD)
created_at_toNoFilter by creation date (to, ISO 8601)
due_date_fromNoFilter by due date (from, YYYY-MM-DD)
updated_at_toNoFilter by last update date (to, ISO 8601)
created_at_fromNoFilter by creation date (from, ISO 8601)
updated_at_fromNoFilter by last update date (from, ISO 8601)
exclude_importedNoExclude imported invoices
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any side effects. It merely repeats the action of listing.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits details on pagination, sorting, response format, and any behavioral constraints.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 12 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already does the job.

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 clearly states it lists client invoices with optional filters, which is specific and distinguishes from single-invoice retrieval or mutation tools. However, it could be more explicit about listing vs showing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools like client_invoice_show, client_invoice_create, or other list tools. The agent is left to infer based on tool names.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexey-pelykh/qontoctl'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server