List invoices by company with issue/due date and settled filters to review billing and payment status.
List fakturaer, med dato- og betaltfilter (datoformat YYYY-MM-DD).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| settled | No | ||
| page_size | No | ||
| due_date_to | No | ||
| company_slug | Yes | ||
| due_date_from | No | ||
| issue_date_to | No | ||
| issue_date_from | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date-format contract and confirms filtering semantics, but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or ordering of 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 the resource up front and the format constraint appended; nothing is wasted. It is arguably over-compressed for an 8-parameter tool, but the structure itself is sound.
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?
With 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and two distinct date families plus pagination, this description is not sufficient for correct invocation. The agent would have to guess at paging defaults and which date field applies.
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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning. It conveys only that date filters exist and use YYYY-MM-DD, leaving page, page_size, company_slug, settled, and the crucial due_date vs issue_date distinction completely unexplained.
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?
'List fakturaer' states a specific verb and resource, and the mention of date and paid filters scopes it further. It does not, however, distinguish it from siblings like fiken_list_sales or fiken_get_invoice, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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 names the available filters but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over fiken_get_invoice for a single record or fiken_list_sales for related data. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.