JobNimbus MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jn_list_invoices

Retrieve a list of invoices from your JobNimbus account. Filter by related entity or set pagination with size and offset.

Instructions

List invoices in JobNimbus.

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": "jn_list_invoices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No
`size`	No
`related_jnid`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond a basic read operation. With no annotations, the agent is unaware of pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool supports filtering via parameters. The parameters (from, size, related_jnid) are not explained.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but lacks structure and essential information. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification, not efficiency. The single sentence leaves critical gaps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. The tool has three parameters with no guidance, and there are many sibling tools, yet no context is provided for selection or usage.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no details. The description does not add any parameter meaning; it only repeats the tool's generic purpose. The agent receives no help understanding how to use the three parameters effectively.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (list) and resource (invoices) with the domain (JobNimbus). However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like jn_list_activities or jn_list_jobs, missing an opportunity to disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of filters, prerequisites, or related entities, leaving the agent without decision context.

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