Skip to main content
Glama
aweher

invoiceninja-mcp

by aweher

invoiceninja_list_recurring_expenses

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recurring expenses from Invoice Ninja with filtering, sorting, and pagination. Resolves client and vendor names automatically for easy review.

Instructions

List recurring expenses from Invoice Ninja with filtering, sorting and pagination. client_status values: all, logged, pending, invoiced, paid, unpaid. extra_filters keys: number; created_between / updated_between ('YYYY-MM-DD,YYYY-MM-DD'), tag_ids (comma separated), assigned_user_ids. Related names are resolved automatically (client_name, vendor_name). Use invoiceninja_get_recurring_expense 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, logged, pending, invoiced, paid, unpaid
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds real value beyond that: the client_status allowed values, the extra_filters keys and formats, and automatic relation-name resolution. It doesn't mention pagination limits or default page size behavior beyond schema, nor rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 with the tool's action and scope, then compact enumerations for filters and a final routing sentence. Every line earns its place; no redundancy. Slightly under-structured as a bullet-less block but readable and tight.

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?

For an 11-parameter list tool with no output schema but rich annotations, the description supplies the filter semantics, resolver behavior, and the follow-up call needed after retrieval. Missing: pagination/response_format guidance and sort examples overlap schema but would have helped. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by enumerating extra_filters keys (number, created_between, updated_between, tag_ids, assigned_user_ids) and the client_status values, which the schema only vaguely references ('see the tool description'). That compensates for the schema's indirect pointer and adds genuine meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (recurring expenses) with scope (filtering, sorting, pagination). It clearly distinguishes from invoiceninja_list_expenses (non-recurring) and invoiceninja_get_recurring_expense (single record), but doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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_recurring_expense with an id from this list for the full record. That is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-alternative handoff. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use, so not a 5.

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