fiken-mcp

fiken_list_credit_notes

Read-only

List all credit notes for your company with optional filters for issue date, settlement status, and customer ID.

Instructions

Returns all credit notes for the company

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": "fiken_list_credit_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`settled`	No
`pageSize`	No
`issueDate`	No
`customerId`	No
`issueDateGe`	No
`issueDateGt`	No
`issueDateLe`	No
`issueDateLt`	No
`lastModifiedGe`	No
`lastModifiedLe`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with 'returns'. However, the description adds no extra behavioral details such as pagination (page, pageSize), filtering semantics (e.g., settled, issueDate ranges), or that results are a list without full content detail. The schema hints at filtering but the description stays silent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (7 words), which is positive for brevity, but it lacks essential structure. It does not hint at filtering or pagination, which are critical for a list endpoint. The conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation), the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine how to effectively filter or paginate results without additional information.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description (11 parameters unexplained), the tool provides zero semantic guidance for parameters like page, settled, customerId, or date filters. This forces the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 'Returns all credit notes for the company' clearly states the verb (returns) and resource (credit notes), but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like fiken_get_credit_note or fiken_list_credit_note_drafts. The phrase 'all credit notes' is misleading given the extensive filtering parameters available.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fiken_get_credit_note (single note) or fiken_list_credit_note_drafts (drafts). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not 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