Skip to main content
Glama
aweher

invoiceninja-mcp

by aweher

invoiceninja_list_payments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve payments from Invoice Ninja with filters, sorting, and pagination. Use it to review payment statuses, search by date or client, and get IDs for full payment details.

Instructions

List payments from Invoice Ninja with filtering, sorting and pagination. client_status values: all, pending, cancelled, failed, completed, partially_refunded, refunded, partially_unapplied. extra_filters keys: number, date_range ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD'); created_between / updated_between ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD'), tag_ids (comma separated), assigned_user_ids. Related names are resolved automatically (client_name). Use invoiceninja_get_payment with an id from this list for the full record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number, starting at 1
sortNoSort as 'column|asc' or 'column|desc', e.g. 'date|desc'
fieldsNoJSON format only: return just these top-level fields (id is always included), e.g. ['number', 'client_name', 'balance', 'due_date']
filterNoFree-text search across the main columns (number, name, contacts, notes…)
statusNoLifecycle filter, comma separated: active, archived, deleted (e.g. 'active' to skip archived and deleted records)
includeNoExtra relations to embed, comma separated (e.g. 'payments,activities')
per_pageNoRecords per page (1-100)
client_idNoOnly records of this client (hashed id)
client_statusNoBusiness status filter, comma separated; one or more of: all, pending, cancelled, failed, completed, partially_refunded, refunded, partially_unapplied
extra_filtersNoAdditional API query filters as name -> value (see the tool description)
response_formatNo'markdown' (default) for a readable summary, 'json' for complete machine-readable data (empty fields removed)markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: related names are auto-resolved (client_name) and it clarifies that records here are partial vs. the full record via get_payment.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by dense but organized detail lines (client_status values, extra_filters keys, auto-resolution, get_payment routing). Every line carries useful information with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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 covers routing, filter vocabularies, and relation auto-resolution. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3, but the description adds value the schema defers to it: extra_filters keys (number, date_range, created_between/updated_between, tag_ids, assigned_user_ids) are documented here because the schema itself says 'see the tool description,' and the client_status values are re-explained.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List payments from Invoice Ninja') and enumerates the capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It explicitly names the sibling get_payment to distinguish a list operation from a single-record fetch.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use invoiceninja_get_payment with an id from this list for the full record,' which clarifies the list-then-get workflow. It does not state any exclusions or when not to use this tool, but the alternative is named with its triggering condition.

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