Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cuéntica MCP

Cuéntica MCP

by dacmail
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_pending_collections

Read-only

Retrieves a summary of unpaid invoices, excluding voided and already collected entries. Optionally filter by year to view pending collections for a specific period.

Instructions

Resumen de facturas emitidas pendientes de cobro. Itera todas las páginas automáticamente. Excluye facturas anuladas (voided) y ya cobradas (paid=True). year: filtra por año (ej: 2026). Sin year devuelve todos los pendientes. Devuelve: {count, total_pending, invoices: [{id, number, date, customer, total, status}]}

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_pending_collections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
yearNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds key behaviors: automatic iteration over all pages, exclusion of voided/paid invoices, and return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: two sentences covering purpose and behavior, plus a clear parameter note and return format. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description provides the return format and pagination behavior. It lacks explicit mention of permissions or error cases, but for a read-only tool with one optional parameter, it is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains the 'year' parameter with an example and default behavior ('Sin year devuelve todos los pendientes'). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a summary of pending collection invoices, automatically paginates, and excludes voided and paid invoices. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_invoices' by focusing on pending collections.

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?

The description explains automatic pagination and filtering by year, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'list_invoices' or 'get_invoice'. It provides clear context on what the tool does and when to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools