list_paymentsRetrieve recorded payments sorted newest first, optionally filtered by a specific invoice. Use page parameter for pagination.
Lists recorded payments, newest first, optionally only those for one invoice.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page of the list, starting at 1 | |
| invoice_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are returned newest first. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a page parameter, so it is adequate rather than rich.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by sort order and the optional filter. No filler and nothing redundant.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description supplies sort order and filter semantics; only pagination behavior is left implicit, which is a minor gap for a simple list tool.
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 coverage is only 50% (invoice_id has no description), and the description compensates by explaining that invoice_id restricts results to a single invoice's payments. The page parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description covers the actual gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists recorded payments'), plus scope details (newest first, optional invoice filter). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_invoices and record_payment by resource name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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 description implies when the filter applies ('optionally only those for one invoice') but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_invoices or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.