Fetch a paginated list of Everclear invoices and filter by status for billing, reconciliation, or reporting needs.
Retrieve a list of invoices
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by invoice status |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not state whether it is read-only, how pagination works, whether authentication is required, or what the return format looks like. These gaps are significant for an agent.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise, though it could potentially include a bit more useful context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the schema's full coverage of parameters, and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It could mention that it returns a list of invoices (which it does), but omits details like pagination behavior or read-only nature that would help the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (limit, offset, status). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline for high coverage.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (list of invoices), making the basic operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_invoices_formatted or get_invoice_details, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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 use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.