List invoices filtered by status, user, or currency with pagination to review billing records and optional related user and item data.
List invoices with status, user filtering, and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| sort | No | Sort field | |
| status | No | Filter by status | |
| include | No | Relations (user, items) | |
| user_id | No | Filter by user ID | |
| per_page | No | Items per page | |
| currency_code | No | Filter by currency |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only confirms that results are paginated and filterable, saying nothing about authentication/permission requirements, default page size, result ordering, or the cost of larger pages.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the core capabilities first. It is efficiently sized, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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?
For a 7-parameter, zero-required list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits sort/include/currency semantics and gives no indication of what a returned invoice record contains.
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 7 parameters. The description only restates status, user, and pagination, omitting sort, include, and currency_code without adding syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb (list) and resource (invoices) and names the filterable dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from paymenter_get_invoice or paymenter_create_invoice, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as paymenter_search or paymenter_get_invoice, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.