list_receiptsFetch receipts for finished sessions showing final cost (charged minus refunded) for a given number of days, with a limit on returned items.
Finished sessions and what each cost in the end (charged minus refunded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Sessions that ended in the last N days | |
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| receipts | Yes | ||
| total_net_usd | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by clarifying that only ended sessions appear and that cost means charged minus refunded – a definition an agent could not infer from the schema. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens with zero results.
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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, and the most distinguishing concept (finished sessions) is front-loaded. It is a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.
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-shape explanation is not required, and the cost definition covers the semantic core. Still missing is any hint about the undocumented 'limit' parameter or result ordering, leaving an agent to guess how to page through receipts.
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 50%: 'days' is documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere, and the description does not compensate by explaining paging behavior or result caps. The description mentions no parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the structured fields.
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?
Names a specific resource – finished sessions with their final cost, defined as charged minus refunded – which is concrete enough to separate it from generic siblings like get_usage. It never states the verb (list) explicitly and reads as a noun fragment, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to reach for this tool versus get_usage, get_machine, or the other list_* siblings. The only implicit cue is 'finished sessions', which hints at completed rather than live data, but no alternative or exclusion is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.