list_billsCheck household bills by status. View unpaid bills first, or filter by due, overdue, paid, or all to track what needs payment.
Lists bills, unpaid ones by default, soonest first. Optionally needs a status filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | unpaid (due + overdue), due, overdue, paid or all. | unpaid |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bills | Yes | ||
| totals_due | Yes |
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, so the read-only nature is disclosed. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: the default status ('unpaid') and the sort order ('soonest first'). It does not contradict the annotations and provides context that would help an agent understand what to expect.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Minor phrasing like 'Optionally needs a status filter' is slightly awkward, but the overall structure is efficient and scannable.
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?
This is a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the default filter and ordering, which are the key behavioral aspects. No critical information needed for calling the tool correctly appears to be missing.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a full enum, default, and per-value explanation. The description's mention of 'Optionally needs a status filter' merely restates the schema's optionality without adding new meaning. This is the baseline score for when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 bills') and adds the default filter ('unpaid') and ordering ('soonest first'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_chores and list_shopping, as well as get_bill which retrieves a single bill.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_bill, get_budget_summary, and list_pending_actions exist, but the description does not mention them or provide selection criteria. The only hint about usage is the optional status filter, which is parameter guidance, not tool-choice guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.